Last week, members of the Convention were also issued with the drafts of articles dealing with the legal instruments of the Union. I am considering these and will be consulting Departments to see if amendments are required. They have already been discussed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs during a full session yesterday. Further articles will be presented over the coming two months and the aim is to have a full draft of the new treaty ready in May. The Convention is still due to submit a final report to the European Council to be held in Thessaloníki in Greece in June.

Institutional issues are central to the Convention's work. Debate in the Convention thus far has been limited to one general discussion because it was deemed, correctly in my view, better to concentrate initially on an examination of the Union's objectives and policies. The raison d'être of the institutions is to deliver those policies and serve the citizens of the Union.

Although the Convention has not yet dealt with the issue of institutions, there has been no shortage of discussion and speculation, and many ideas have been circulated, including papers from the Benelux countries and the European Commission, as well as the Franco-German paper which attracted much attention at the beginning of the year and to which there have been varying reactions. The Franco-German proposals were discussed in some depth in a plenary session at the Convention and not well received.

I will set out the underlying principles guiding Ireland's approach to the institutional issues because this approach will be central in the final part of the Convention's work. I hope these principles, which I have set out elsewhere, are widely shared across the Union and, in particular, the acceding states. We wish to see a European Union that meets the needs and expectations of its peoples in an effective and responsive way and in which the institutions are made more open and accessible. The European Union is a union of states and peoples, and any new arrangements must continue to reflect this dual nature.

The Community method, essential to the success of the Union to date, must be maintained. The equality of all member states, large and small, old and new, must be recognised, respected and preserved. All elements of the institutional triangle, the Commission, Council and European Parliament, must be strengthened, while the balances between them must be preserved. The Government does not regard this as a zero sum game where an improvement in one area is achieved by a disimprovement in another. Rather, it takes a contrary view.

We believe a strong and effective Commission is essential to the functioning and development of the Union. It should continue to have the sole right of initiative in the so-called first pillar areas. We support the approach to size and composition recently outlined in the Benelux paper which involves adherence to what was agreed at Nice and guaranteeing "equality of all member states in both its operations and its composition, based on the principle of equal rotation".

Equality is a fundamental issue for Ireland and we have given considerable thought to ways in which the democratic legitimacy and authority of the President of the Commission – and, thus, of the Commission itself – could be enhanced. Some members of the Convention favour the current system of selection, a process in which member states, through the European Council, play the dominant role. However, there is also strong support for election by the European Parliament. While this view is most enthusiastically put forward by MEPs, it is also strongly supported by a number of member states. Many Senators will be aware that Deputy John Bruton has put forward a paper on the direct election of the President. His contribution is creative and innovative, but it seems to be ahead of its time.

Senators who have been following the Convention closely will be aware that since its inception, the Government has supported the concept of an enhanced role for national parliaments in EU affairs. Against this background, I have submitted a paper to the Convention proposing that the President be elected by an electoral college composed of national parliaments and the European Parliament. The paper is intended to contribute positively and constructively to the debate.

It is logical to propose that the European Parliament and member states, as the two other sides of the triangle, should play equal roles in the appointment of the President of the Commission. Accordingly, my paper explored the concept of an electoral college in which the European Parliament and national parliaments would play a 50-50 role. This idea represents a middle way between the imperfect current system and election by the European Parliament alone, which is also imperfect. It would ensure that the President of the Commission derived democratic legitimacy at European and national level in a reflection of the dual nature of the Union. Election via this model would fully reflect the diversity of political opinions and preferences across the Union and within Member States. The selection of the President could not, therefore, be dominated by any one political grouping. The range of details which will have to be examined if this concept is deemed worthy of consideration is elaborated in the paper.

The European Parliament should have half the votes and each national parliament should be treated equally. Each parliament may be allowed to split its vote to reflect its internal diversity and voting could take place through delegates or electronically and simultaneously across Europe. The intention is not to create a separate institution. I would prefer the European and national parliaments to meet simultaneously in their own Chambers to elect the President of the Commission. It is an exciting prospect and it would be of huge symbolic importance.

It is also proposed that election take place through our proportional representation system with its single transferable vote. In discussions of our system, other Europeans have acknowledged its significant merits, particularly in the context of an election of this sort. I have suggested that nominations come from a minimum of five national governments, from a specific number MEPs or from a combination of these. At present, the selection of the President is decided by a number of late-night phone calls, which is less open and transparent than the process I suggest.

During the election campaign, candidates should appear in the media and speak to Parliaments and their committees across the Union. Since the EU is a union of states and peoples, successful candidates should demonstrate an understanding of the differing conditions in each country. In putting forward this idea, I was conscious of the reasons the Convention was established. Its primary purpose is to make the Union closer to its citizens. While adoption of my proposal would strengthen both the President and the Commission, its most important result would be the sense of excitement engendered by a transparent, EU-wide election held on a single day. That would certainly have the effect of making the Union's activities more relevant to citizens of new and old member states alike. My aim in putting forward my ideas is to stimulate debate and I am not dogmatic or fixed in my views. My intention is to strengthen the role of the Commission and its President, but if that can be achieved more effectively than in the way I suggest I would be happy to consider other proposals.

Similar principles of equality must be respected in the Council of Ministers. We all accept that it must be organised in a manner that ensures its coherence and effectiveness. While we all recognise that improvements could be made, many of the Council's perceived problems are administrative or managerial in nature and, consequently, require administrative or managerial solutions. There is much merit in seeking further practical enhancement of the continuity and effectiveness of the Presidency along the lines of reforms agreed at the Seville Council in June 2002. The reforms agreed include annual and multi-annual programming and closer co-operation between presidencies.

It is important to maintain the principle of equality of member states in the operation of the Council, which is why the Government has not been convinced by the case for an elected President of the Council – a core proposal of the Franco-German paper. The Government is concerned that institutional balance, in general, and the role of the Commission, in particular, would be weakened if this proposal was adopted.

The Franco-German proposal prompts major practical questions in terms of the way the office would relate to that of a new foreign policy chief. The perceived weakness the proposal is ostensibly designed to address could be remedied by less radical and risky means than an elected Council President. The Government would support a single High Representative and Commissioner for External Relations, subject to the establishment of appropriate lines of accountability and a clear definition of the officeholder's relationships with the Council and the Commission. Financial and staff resources could be enhanced through the creation of a range of deputy high representative posts.

In terms of internal affairs, we support further reform of the rotating Presidency and the creation of a full-time Secretary General of the Council. Members will be aware that when the High Representative position filled by Javier Solana was created, it was married to the post of Secretary General. It is not possible to fulfil both these offices since the High Representative must visit the four corners of the earth. Creation of a full-time Secretary General post would address the administrative ills which result from a lack of continuity.

The key advantages of the rotating Presidency should be preserved and the Government is open to discussion as to the means of achieving this objective. We are particularly interested in seeing further detailed work on the concept of a team Presidency, which envisages a number of states undertaking Presidency tasks which still rotate over time. If three member states held the Presidency over 18 months, or five over two and a half years, each would hold the office for six months while taking advantage of far greater supports, particularly in the case of smaller or newer members.

There are also proposals in the Commission and Benelux papers to combine the rotation of some Presidency functions with election or appointment to some Council chairs. These ideas could form a basis for progress. There is no reason the Irish Presidency should have to fill the chairs of every one of the more than 200 committees which will sit during its lifetime. Many of the committees are technical in nature and a different approach would make the Presidency less burdensome.

With respect to the European Parliament, we have already indicated our support for their role in electing the Commission President as part of an electoral college. We are also happy to consider co-decision to be the norm as part of the decision-making process and that it can be extended on a case-by-case basis.

I attach particular importance to the principle of good governance. Together with the Swedish and Finnish Government representatives, I have submitted a joint paper on the issue of good administration by the European institutions which calls for the development of existing provisions on openness and public access—

Outside the Administration, developments in the Convention are considered in two public fora, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and the National Forum on Europe. I pay particular tribute to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and Deputy Gay Mitchell, its chairman, who has done extraordinary work in keeping abreast of developments in the Convention. Tribute is also due to the work of the National Forum on Europe which is unique both in the existing 15 member states and among the ten incoming states. It has a more proactive view as to how the issue of the Convention should be dealt with than any counterpart in any country in the European Union. It is time to recognise that when we do something in this country, we do it well.

The National Forum on Europe under the chairmanship of Senator Maurice Hayes has also been following the Convention very closely. The Oireachtas Members at the Convention and I regularly attend its sessions both to participate in discussions on specific issues and to update it on the Convention's work and, in my case, the Government's approach. I was due to address its session yesterday on the final report of the social Europe working group; however, due to the unfortunate motor accident involving the chairman of the group, Giorgios Katiforis, the plenary was postponed. I send my good wishes to Mr. Katiforis and my hopes for his speedy recovery. The patience, good humour and intelligence that he has brought to the Convention and meetings of national representatives have been greatly appreciated by all. He is a very good friend of the small countries and a particularly staunch friend of ours. I hope he will have the opportunity to visit the forum which yesterday took the unique and quite extraordinary initiative of issuing a video specifically aimed at schools to inform young people on the work of the Convention. I recommend it to Members of the House.

Building alliances with like-minded states is another part of the Government's response to the Convention. This work is carried out at a number of levels. I represent the Government at the regular meetings of national representatives from both the current and accession states which take place in advance of Convention plenary sessions. I chaired the last meeting of the group in the absence of the chairman, Mr. Katiforis. The smaller member states meet at dinners that take place the night before plenary sessions. I hosted the first of the dinners which I invited some of the accession states to attend. In a response to a suggestion which I made, the group has held a number of informal working sessions aimed at establishing common ground on key issues.

I also participate in regular meetings of both small and large member states. This group is loosely referred to as the "like-minded group" and meets on the morning prior to every plenary session to discuss a wide range of Convention issues.

Beyond Convention sessions, members of the Government have also been involved in regular discussions with their counterparts in the European Union and other Convention members. In January I held talks in Lisbon with the Portuguese Minister for European Affairs and Ernani Lopes, Portugal's Convention representative. I travelled to Warsaw in January for a conference that was also attended by Convention president, Giscard d'Estaing, and had discussions with the Polish national representative and Minister for Europe, Danuta Hubner. I had further discussions in Slovenia on the Convention. Last month I travelled to Prague where I met the representatives of the Government and Parliament of the Czech Republic. I also travelled to Vienna last month where I met with Foreign Minister, Ferrero-Waldner, and Convention representative, Hannes Farnleitner. I went to Vilnius where I met Foreign Minister Valionis, the Lithuanian Convention representatives, the Lithuanian European affairs committee and the speaker of the Lithuanian Parliament. In Prague and Lithuania, both parliamentary committees with which I met asked that I pass on their particular regards and grateful thanks to the Irish people for being so supportive in the matter of European Community enlargement. They regard Ireland as a very good friend of their cause. These contacts will continue as the Convention and Intergovernmental Conference processes continue.

Bilateral meetings are also a feature of almost every Convention session. There have been very valuable discussions on the Convention among Ministers for European Affairs on the margins of all the recent European Council meetings. The Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs will be involved in full programmes of visits during the coming months. These will include visits to Germany, Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also met with his Dutch counterpart on the margins of the most recent General Affairs and External Relations Council. These meetings are particularly valuable in helping us to build alliances and establish matters on which there is common ground.

It should be placed on record that Ireland is at the very heart of the process of trying to find common ground and developing institutions that will serve the European Union well and which will recognise that which was most valuable in the establishment of a peaceful and prosperous Europe. We have also made a number of written contributions to the Convention. We are probably ahead of most other states in this regard.

As I noted earlier, I forwarded a paper on the election of the President of the European Commission. That paper has been well received and support for the proposal is growing. I note, for example, that in the past seven days the Prime Minister of Sweden indicated that while his personal preference was still for the existing procedure, if an alternative was introduced, it would be that outlined in the Irish paper.

As I already stated, in conjunction with my Swedish and Finnish Government counterparts, I have also submitted a paper on the issue of good administration by the European institutions. My alternate to the Convention submitted a paper to the external action working group on the role of the High Representative. This was favourably received and substantially influenced the final report of the working group on external action.

In addition to the Government's input, Deputy John Bruton and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, and their alternates, Deputy Pat Carey and Deputy Gormley, have brought forward many positive ideas. They have played active roles both in the Convention plenaries and in the working groups of which they are members. The active role played by these three Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas and one Member of the European Parliament has not been properly recognised. I am particularly conscious of the strain that has been placed on Deputies Carey and Gormley because, as backbench Deputies, they have duties at home which must inevitably suffer if they are serving the nation in another way. Their activity, energy and the amount of time they have devoted should be handsomely recognised.

Deputy John Bruton also plays an important and valuable role as a member of the Praesidium, a role that has become even more important now that the Convention has moved into a more decisive drafting phase. I want to put on record that I have the best of relationships with Deputy John Bruton. We have established one of the best working relationships across the Convention. People have commented that the members of the Irish team sing from the same hymn sheet, whenever possible.

There are, of course, differences of emphasis in a number of areas between the Government and some of the Oireachtas representatives. Deputy John Bruton and I have submitted different papers on how the President of the Commission should be elected. Notwithstanding any differences, as Irish representatives we meet formally before each Convention session to discuss the agenda and Convention issues more generally. I can state clearly that, collectively and from this country's point of view, we are absolutely committed to seeing the most successful outcome for Ireland in the Convention, the Intergovernmental Conference and in the new treaty. I repeat what I have said already, I am not aware of more comprehensive arrangements in a member or accession state. I hope I have provided some evidence of the seriousness with which the Government and the team at the Convention take the process.

More than 1,000 amendments were tabled to the first 16 articles. The task for the Convention over the coming months will no doubt be difficult if it is to conclude its work according to the agreed timetable and present its conclusions to the European Council in June. I hope, nonetheless, that this will be possible, that substantial consensus will be reached and that the task of the intergovernmental conference will be made easier. We will have some interest in the date of the Intergovernmental Conference. It is beginning to look increasingly likely that the Intergovernmental Conference will not begin until the middle or end of October. That said, it is unlikely it will conclude its work before Christmas 2003. If that is the case, the Intergovernmental Conference will be concluded during Ireland's Presidency. The prospect of a treaty of Bray, a treaty of Templemore or even a treaty of Dublin looms.

We have a long way to go to ensure that the public will buy into the new treaty. I agree with the Minister of State's closing remarks, which were a repeat of the Minister, Deputy Cowen's, statement that we have nothing to fear and everything to gain from a renewed Europe. When people think it through, they will come to that conclusion. In today's Ireland, we have moved significantly away from the views held on Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1970s and 1980s the Irish people saw the word "Europe" as meaning opportunity, an opening and a new way forward. During the 1990s, instead of seeing opportunities, people saw certain doubts and fears. As we witnessed during the debates on the Nice treaty, it was not a question of what we would get from Europe but what we would lose to Europe. We almost feared the cost of success. This debate is before us and we must be ready to address it.

This country is now politically at the centre of Europe. We are main players in the politics of Europe and in shaping the new Europe. The challenge for Members and the political establishment is to ensure that we bring the public with us, which will be a difficult task.

I was interested in what the Minister of State had to say about the video produced for the younger citizens of Europe. We should try to spread that message, not only to the younger citizens of the European Union but also to every citizen if we want to succeed in selling a new and bigger European Union. The public is engaged in the debate on the Commission Presidency and how it will be finalised and selected. It is healthy that alternatives are on offer and that it is not seen as a fait accompli. I am sure Deputy John Bruton will present his analysis next week. I fully respect the Minister of State's analysis. It is a wise course he is trying to pursue. The public is interested in giving due recognition to the European Parliament and national parliaments. These are just some of the issues we will pursue further with the Minister of State.

We must try to get the message across to the people in a way which is straightforward and jargon free. The debate is only starting. The Minister of State's work is perhaps nearing a conclusion. However, the work of national parliamentarians is only starting. We have a lot of work to do.

I cannot understand the recent statement by the media that the Government has not adopted a hands-on approach, particularly given that the Forum on Europe, under the stewardship of Senator Maurice Hayes, has travelled the highways and byways discussing this issue. I saw the magnificent video yesterday which will be sent to every secondary school. Every transition year student will have an opportunity to give his or her views on the Convention on the Future of Europe. It is nonsense for the media to suggest the Government has not adopted a hands-on approach.

I have attended many meetings in the past month of the Joint Committee on European Affairs which has discussed this issue. I spent hours at home studying it in order that I would be able to speak at ease without reverting to gobbledygook. I attended a public meeting last night and was pleased to be able to speak about subsidiarity in simple language. I welcome the opportunity to tell this to the Minister of State, although he is already aware of it as evidenced by his speech.

I want to speak about the institutions of the European Union and how they will be revamped and strengthened in the next session of the Convention on the Future of Europe. I thought there were only two schools of thought in relation to the election of the president but there now seems to be three on how this process should move forward. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify this. We can often say too much and become confused. Perhaps the Minister of State will outline the Government's approach to the selection process and how it should be transparent and open. We should all feel involved rather than allowing the process to take place behind closed doors.

We spoke about this issue during the debate on the Nice treaty referendum. We want to include the public. The Forum on Europe and the Joint Committee on European Affairs have made it clear that there will another treaty in the future. We are moving forward with this in mind. The Convention has until June to present its conclusions. The Minister of State said the third phase of the Convention would be brought forward at the Intergovernmental Conference which will take place in the autumn. I hope the treaty will be signed in Ireland and that it will be called the Treaty of Dublin, the Treaty of Athlone or the Treaty of Waterford. I would like to be able to put our stamp on it. We would be proud to campaign for a Treaty of Dublin. We are ahead of member and applicant states in terms of moving forward. We have gone about it the right way and will be successful. I congratulate the Minister of State and the team for the Trojan work they have done in making the Convention accessible and reflecting the views and expectations of all citizens.

The Minister of State is rightly keeping a close eye on the situation regarding the smaller states, the power of which people underestimate. They have the notion that the bigger states call all the shots but that is not so. The smaller states have a great deal of power. I am delighted to see the Minister of State discussing issues regarding good governance with the Swedish and Finnish Governments. There is a Bill now before the House, the title of which, I am sorry to say, we barely dare speak, that has nothing to do with transparency and openness. It must be a little awkward for the Minister of State to go back and discuss with these open people what is happening here.

Will the Minister of State make reference to the issue of federalism? I attended the meeting of the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in Loughrea where this word appeared to frighten people. The Minister of State has proposed amendments to the various articles, in particular, Article 1 which talks about the competences of the Union being exercised on a federal basis. If I am correct in my interpretation of what was in the newspaper today, he is right about this. Many things are done on a federal basis within the European Union and many of its characteristics are federal in nature. However, the Union is not a federation in the classic sense of the word as we understand it in terms of the United States or Germany. I am not frightened by things being done on a federal basis within the competences of the Union but understand that it does cause fright to some and could be used as a vehicle for the mounting of a negative campaign in regard to the adoption of the final treaty that emerges from the Intergovernmental Conference. Will the Minister of State comment on this?

The matters raised by the Minister of State in regard to the institutional arrangements are important and we have dealt well with them. What is the European Union? What does it do and what are its characteristics? These are now the fundamental questions which challenge the Convention. It is critical that it is properly presented in terms of the final adoption of the treaty.

The attachment of the charter to the constitutional treaty is another issue to be dealt with. I use the words "constitutional treaty" rather than the word "constitution" because there is confusion on this issue. We accept that the charter of human rights would be attached but the nature of the attachment concerns me. Will it have legal standing or is it just a political statement?

The question of the interaction between the Constitution and the constitutional treaty that emerges from the Convention is another issue to be dealt with. I accept the fact that the Constitution is supreme in terms of our domestic law. It will only be matters within the competences of the European Union that will be covered by the constitutional treaty.

The Minister of State made an important statement about strengthening the Parliament, Commission and Council. It is critical that balance be maintained within that mutual strengthening. When I was in Brussels, I detected a power struggle between the Council and the Commission. While that is understandable, I would not like the election of a president to become politicised to the extent that the institutions could be undermined. The term of the presidency of the Council is another question to be dealt with. The Minister dealt with the matter of the triumvirate but how will the term be defined?

There is a proposal that the Commission should legislate in public. What is our view on this? Points were made about transparency. The Commission and the Council are transparent in terms of decision making but many meetings take place in private. They are not paragons of virtue relative to our situation. The Praesidium and the Commission meet in private, rightly so. Will the Minister of State give us his observations on the proposal that the legislative aspects of the Commission be open to the public?

I do not have a problem with protecting Government. I do not have any difficulty with matters that are secret, of necessity, being kept secret. However, I have a difficulty with the fact that where secrecy is offered without being accountable it will be used for far more than is needed. This raises the issue of why many of the State papers that are disclosed every New Year's Day needed to be kept secret for 30 years. Apart from the privacy of certain individuals, very little of what is eventually disclosed really needed to be kept secret for so long.

I wish to ask the Minister of State to pursue one issue in regard to secrecy. During the term of the previous Government, I was a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. It was a very enjoyable and interesting committee and I hope I was an active member. One of the lowest points for the committee came about due to a proposed meeting with Javier Solana, who had been recently appointed to the position of High Representative for common foreign and security policy. He would only meet us on condition that the meeting was in private. We refused and no meeting took place. I do not have a problem if there is a reason for that sort of thing. In principle, a European High Representative should come to meet the committee of a national parliament to discuss European business. We do not have huge secrets at European level and I believe that it is fundamentally wrong that he insisted that the meeting be held in private.

In regard to the work of the Minister of State and the suggestions we made, it seems that the important thing is to try to strengthen and maintain the architecture of the Union while making it more transparent and efficient. Without question, the interests of a smaller country such as Ireland will be better protected by having a strong Commission.

As legislators, we are privileged to have the opportunity to absorb – I am not so sure we are able to absorb them all – the complexities of the EU through the Minister of State's active involvement in this Chamber, in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, in the National Forum on Europe and several other fora. I ask him to respond again to the fears people had during the first Nice referendum and to a lesser extent in the second referendum? It is a somewhat like that other cliché "It won't go away, they are still out there". I refer here to the issue of neutrality. At yesterday's meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I raised a question about the competency and the apparent overlap of various articles which seems to suggest a need for clarification. The Minister of State agreed – I am glad that The Irish Times covered his response – about the need for clarity where common foreign and security policy issues are concerned and the fact that there is not an ultimate primacy over Irish constitutional law in that regard.

Like my colleagues, I am amazed at the Minister of State's energy and I have been aware of his commitment since we served together on the Western European Union Parliamentary Assembly. I am overwhelmed by his dedication and I wish him continued success not only in what he is attempting to achieve, but also in the manner in which he is batting for Ireland at a very serious time in our nation's history.

This afternoon Eurobarometer survey No. 58 was published. Its first conclusion is that with regard to EU enlargement, Ireland is the best-informed member state and very supportive of enlargement. I have always said that the Irish vote on enlargement was an act of generosity by the Irish people. We could have been the dog in the manger, but we were not. When I travelled around the country I was inspired by the fact that people had questions, and rightly so, because the Nice treaty was far from being a perfect document. I had the job of selling it to virtually 4 million Irish people and I knew all about its imperfections by the time the campaign was over. Senator Ryan grasped the essence of the Irish vote, and I compliment him, because this was the first treaty where we could have done damage to other people but we did not.

It is perceived as an act of generosity. Last Monday, at a European Affairs committee meeting, I was asked about comments made by Mr. Chirac, a man for whom I have high regard, over the previous weekend. He is a sophisticated politician representing a sophisticated and civilised country. I commented on the suggestion that new member states were not equal, whereas the very essence of the EU is equality, and if we lose sight of that, the EU will not last or prosper.

I made this comment off the cuff, and I was astonished when I arrived in Prague on Thursday in the Parliament building and met a national representative who thanked me and the Irish Parliament for the comment. The Foreign Minister, the Leader of the Senate and the Opposition leader subsequently said they regarded Ireland as the true friend of small nations. I said we had so much in common in their recent history, with a large neighbour taking occupancy of their homeland. They had that for 50 years, Ireland had it for 700 years, so we understood their difficulties. We have an affinity with those people. We should build on that, and be the champion of the small and medium states. This could be one of those lovely occasions involving a synergy between self-interest and the right thing to do.

The Eurobarometer shows that confidence in European institutions has increased dramatically in Ireland in the past year. Ireland's confidence rating for the European Parliament is now at 61%, the highest in the EU. In the Commission the rating has risen to 57%, having previously dropped to 48%. Even the Council of Ministers, with all its imperfections, now has a confidence rating by Ireland of over 50%. This whole process of referenda and debate has been very positive in Ireland because it has a better understanding of the EU. We are to the fore in this regard, a factor which we do not recognise.

Senator Ormonde spoke about principles. I have argued that it is important that the small and medium states should evolve a set of principles, rather than become involved in the negative argument against proposals. Our Department of Foreign Affairs has drafted such a set of principles, which was circulated to all the smaller states. Last week, for the first time, representatives of all the small and medium states of the EU met. We did not all agree, but we met. Our intention was not to create a dichotomy between small and big states, but to establish principles regarding equality and rotation.

As Senator Hayes said, equality is more important than numbers. People are being seduced by the old argument that there should be one Commission member per member state. I would love to see that and would be anxious to achieve it, but only if there is equality. There is no point if one Commissioner is in charge of paper-clips and another in charge of a major portfolio.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, made this point eloquently in his contribution to the IEA. His philosophy in this regard informs my own thinking and the policies we are pursuing. It is seductive, particularly for newer states, to argue the one-for-one basis, but the most important basis is equality. If there is to be rotation, it must be on an equality basis. We are on the strong moral ground in fighting for this, and we will win. If we can improve matters by going a step further, we will do that too.

Senator Ormonde also made a point about the name, the Treaty of Dublin. I am not concerned about the title on the treaty. Regarding Senator Dardis's point, it was the Government which fought for the term "constitutional treaty" rather than "constitution", which is used rather sloppily throughout the treaty text. I would love it to be the Treaty of Dublin. Who would not? The most important part of the process is to get a treaty which will serve the people for many years to come, a treaty which the ordinary European citizen can read and understand, rather than the gobbledygook which has passed for treaties before now. We must avoid convoluted language.

Senator Henry asked if the Government is inimical to the rights of children. Of course it is not. It is a ludicrous suggestion. Those who know me know how conscious I am of the rights of children.

There are two broad approaches within the Convention discussion regarding issues of competencies. In the Social Europe Group, of which I was a member and all of whose meetings I attended, one argument was for a long list of competencies, but in such a list some things are inevitably omitted. In the original draft, we were faced with just such a situation. The rights of children were mentioned, but the rights of the disabled were not. Inter-generational rights were not represented – the requirement for younger people to show concern for older people was not there. There was also a right at which people like myself and Senator Ryan would cavil regarding the defence of the community. I did not know what that meant.

In my submission, I have suggested a rewording of the Article. I have proposed using the United Nations formulation regarding human rights. This avoids the danger of omitting something from a list. When drafting such a treaty, an important point is to avoid suggesting a community has more competencies than it actually has. If we look at the relevant section of the treaty, it clearly failed in this regard.

We recommend the universality of rights rather than offend against an individual right. I am grateful to Senator Henry for asking that question. If the Convention falls back to the idea of a long list, we will look at it to make sure it is comprehensive and absolutely inclusive and that the rights of disabled people and inter-generational rights are included. There are two dangers if one decides on enumeration. There is a danger of leaving something out and that one may create an artificial view of what the rights are. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the question.

I agree with Senator Henry that we got a nasty shock when the first Nice treaty referendum was defeated. When the Taoiseach telephoned me on 6 June and said he was making me Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, I was delighted. When he said, "By the way, the first thing you are going to have to do is get Nice 2 through," I had a certain little—

While I do not like to knock the media, I agree with Senator Dardis. There is a certain laziness in suggesting that we are not up to speed. This can be shown to be wrong by any objective appraisal of the facts and it is so wrong that it is offensive. Senator Dardis is correct in saying Article 1.1 makes reference to a federal basis. That is all it does. When the first 16 articles were published, I said people should not be over-excited by this article because it was not describing a federal constitution. Members will be aware of an interesting parallel debate in Dáil Éireann when Bunreacht na hÉireann was introduced. When Mr. de Valera was asked the reason the Constitution did not state that Ireland was a republic, he took out the dictionary and defined the word "republic". He said that if one brought an elephant or a horse into the House, one would not need to hang a label around its neck.

In the plenary and working sessions I have said that the use of the word "federal" describes a process, not the nature of the Union. That is exactly what it does. The word "federal" is written with a lower case 'f' in the second part of the sentence. I have suggested that if the second part of the sentence was struck out, Article 1.1 would become much more impressive and clear. A number of states have argued that we should be talking about an ever-closer Union. This is language from the older treaties on which there will have to be a compromise. It is a tactical error to get too hung up on the issue of federalism because it has brought the federalists back out. If I was a federalist, I would be very unhappy with the first 16 articles.

Senator Dardis also mentioned the attachment of the charter to the treaty. The appropriate place to put the charter is in a protocol. There are 54 articles, four of which have horizontal provisions. It would become very cumbersome if it was incorporated in the first part of the treaty. The majority view is that it should be in part 2. I think it appropriate that it be included in a protocol. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has the clearest view of any of his counterparts in Europe. He has pointed out that if one is going to bring forward the charter, the horizontal provisions and the commentary as to how judges should interpret it, it cannot be included in the treaty. The charter will only apply in a restricted position, that is, to European institutions and the member states fulfilling their responsibilities. That is the clearest exposition of where it should be placed. I am arguing for this, not that we are hostile in any way to the charter but on the basis that we want to make sure that when it comes in, there will not be a clash between the competence of the Union on issues relating to fundamental rights and the Constitution, which is superior. The title, constitutional treaty, is used to retain the institutional balance. That is exactly the argument we are making. We want to retain the institutional balance.

Senator Ryan made reference to other issues. He was the first person to introduce a FOI Bill. I was rather more successful in that I got the agreement of this House to such a Bill. It would be interesting to compare the current debates with some of the issues I raised, but I will not go into that.

The specific issue the Senator raised was that of tax harmonisation. This is an important matter. We have said we are not hostile to the process of tax harmonisation, but it is of such significance that it should continue to be dealt with on the basis of unanimity within the Council of Ministers. Senators will appreciate that, given that we have surrendered the monetary instruments, the fiscal instrument is important and close to sovereignty. I feel a sense of annoyance about this in the Convention because most of the arguments put forward for tax harmonisation by QMV are ill-considered and do not stand up to any critical test. I understand why some countries are making those arguments, but I cannot understand why others are doing so.

In my visits to the new states I have pointed out the significance of retaining the fiscal instrument and of the need for tax harmonisation on the basis of unanimity. When the Convention touched on this – there was a fatuous suggestion that a consensus might be reached – I drafted a letter, which was signed by me, Peter Hain from the United Kingdom, the representative from Sweden and representatives of two of the incoming states, to say we that represent different views on the tax issue in general and different approaches to tax, but that we want this issue to continue to be dealt with on the basis of unanimity. That is a view which is growing within the Convention. The Department of Finance recently produced a good draft for me on that topic and I have used it effectively elsewhere to win support for the idea.

Senator Mooney asked if we are at a crossroads. We are always at a crossroads and it is a good place to be. It means one is going forward and is not stuck in the mud. The Senator also referred to neutrality. The first point to be made here is that the articles on CFSP have not come forward, but the working group that dealt with defence recognised the fact that there are different views. The issue of small, non-aligned or neutral states will be well represented by me and others on the Convention. I would be glad to answer any other questions.

Being an island nation, we are isolated from mainland Europe and are faced with a "them and us" situation. Local democracy is an issue that has not been mentioned in the treaty. Democracy should come from the bottom up, but here it come from the top down. We have the most centralised system of local government in Europe, particularly when one compares it with those in Denmark, Germany, etc., and it must be considered. We are being treated with arrogance. Since Christmas we have had three or four Bills before the House which dilute the powers of elected local representatives. I refer here to the Protection of the Environment Bill, the Local Government Bill and the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, which will have an impact on us in terms of discovering what is happening at local government level.

In regard to local democracy, the issue of subsidiarity is dealt with in the Convention in a very appropriate way. In fact, it is dealt with in a more interesting way than we have dealt with it in this country. Subsidiarity goes to the heart of the argument of local versus national government or centralisation versus decentralisation. The Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, said to me some time ago when I was making a contribution on federalism, that in parts of Europe, including Belgium, subsidiarity and federalism were regarded as two sides of the same coin. We just take a different view. It is interesting that people in Europe take different views. Members will be aware that the Committee of the Regions has made a submission. I do not know how it will pan out because the Convention's focus is not inward as regards member states. Its primary job is to take existing treaties, bring them together and produce a coherent document. It does not have a remit to extend the competences of the Community in any way or enter into new areas.

Senator O'Rourke asked a good question about the number of amendments. There are over 1,100 to the first 16 articles.

Senator Fitzgerald talked about marking change. He mentioned the fact that we are moving from being a net recipient to a net contributor. That is a great position in which to be because it means we have more than caught up with the European average. It is Ireland's great achievement over the last 30 years. We will continue to be huge beneficiaries. First, we are finding our feet nationally and our confidence in the European Union; second, our young people will have the benefit of a Union which is at peace and harmony with itself and which, I hope, can see eye to eye on major issues; and, third, we have the most important thing of all, a big economic market.

I am very positive about the European Union and the Convention. The team and I are putting a huge amount of energy into the Convention because it presents an opportunity for us all in this small peripheral state to put our mark on the future. It is the best opportunity we will ever have and we should grasp it with both hands.