I thank the junior Ministers for tabling the motion and note the proposed conference on the future of Europe, which will take place later in June, as an indication of a positive response from the Executive.

The establishment of a convention to consider the future of Europe is a defining moment in the life of the European Union. It is made necessary by the accession of 10 member states, mostly in central and eastern Europe. Chaired by a former French President, with two former Prime Ministers of Italy and Belgium as his deputies, the convention is a serious body and no mere talking shop. Driven by a presidium that meets twice a month, it possesses an inbuilt mechanism for forward momentum. Therefore, the direction that it takes is critical. Representatives of the national Governments and Parliaments heavily outweigh the representatives of the Commission and the European Parliament by almost three to one. That is a critical equation and demonstrates that the vision of a Europe of co-operating nation states has prevailed over a centralised bureaucratic vision, which is a good start. It is how Britain has always seen it and it is how France and other member states are increasingly seeing it.

The Laeken declaration says that

It addresses the democratic challenge that faces Europe, the need for Europe to be less unwieldy and rigid and to be more efficient and open. It also says that

It further states that Europe should be about

and that what the people expect is

The convention is a great window of opportunity to mould the future of the European Union. Europe is a treaty-based free association of states, which is why a constitution for Europe is wrong; it logically presupposes the existence of a superstate. It is counter to the expectations of the European people. People want to gain advantages from Europe and to see tangible benefits from its mutualism. On the other hand, bureaucracy is a disease. Under the guise of being logical and organising affairs better, it is a parasitic organism that grows at everyone's expense.

A balance must be struck between the benefits of organising the affairs of state, both economic and political, en masse and the democratic deficit and sense of disempowerment that over-regulation and bureaucracy cause. Therefore, the Laeken declaration is a crossroads. We must establish a European Union with the light touch of networking and mutual benefit, not the heavy hand of bureaucracy. A protracted, detailed debate on the form and structure of a European constitution would be time- consuming. That time would be better spent focusing on how to make Europe less bureaucratic and more democratic.

The desire of the European institutions and national Governments to jealously guard their competencies against encroachment is understandable, but their shared willingness to exclude regional input is unforgivable and represents a weakening of their declared aim of greater involvement with the citizen. It would be remiss therefore of the Assembly, given its local experience with agriculture and fisheries, not to make the case for a stronger regional voice.

As a constitutional region, it is important that we use the opportunity to play a full part in the crucial debate on the future of Europe. We must therefore use all three channels that are available - the European convention, the Committee of the Regions, even if it is an observer to the convention, and the forum that runs parallel to the convention itself.

Having said that, we in the regional Assemblies, which have proliferated all over Europe, must assert our role in that new Europe. The regional Assemblies and Governments have an immediacy that enables them to relate to Europe more directly, more responsively and more effectively than a national Parliament can ever hope to. The essence of how those regional Assemblies and Administrations can interface with Europe is through networking. The House will recall that a Committee of the Centre report on how Northern Ireland could interface more effectively in Europe said that informal, as well as formal, networking was the key. That is a function of size and immediacy, part of that informality generated by smaller, more local and less formal regional Assemblies, as compared with national Parliaments.

It is a question of scale and of tailoring economic and governmental packages to suit the specific needs of a particular province or region. There must be a dynamic and vibrant relationship between the regional Assemblies, such as this one at Stormont, the national Parliaments and the European Parliament. Westminster is in danger of becoming a bit of a backwater as it increasingly rubber- stamps the many decisions that are made in Europe in the first instance. Strangely, the less formal regional Assemblies interface better with the central European institutions, the European Parliament and the European Commission. More democratic accountability, the creation of an upper chamber of the European Parliament fed by members of national Parliaments, with an injection of democratic accountability for the Commission and the Council of Ministers, may be a way to achieve this.

That course, however, is fraught with danger for the nation states. As the European Parliament became a focus of real democratic accountability and, therefore, of power, it would increasingly challenge the independence of the national Governments and Parliaments. Power moves with spending power; that is the way of the world. That is why we must craft a new post-Laeken Europe with care, for every opportunity contains a threat, and every threat contains an opportunity.

Some interesting comments have been made, and I am inclined to think about the origins of the European Union. It began as an economic unit, instituting the coal and iron ore agreements. The parliamentary tier was introduced later, and that provided a role for representation. Now, some 50 years later, we stand at a crossroads, facing two basic challenges about where we should go in Europe. One of those challenges comes from inside the union, and the other from outside, as has been mentioned already. There is a challenge in Europe to make the institutions more relevant, more accessible, and more identified with the needs of the people. Matters under discussion with regard to a revision of those institutions include changes in representation, a further chamber, which has been mentioned in the debate, and different forms of election and representation.

For me and my party, however, it is the outside pressures that dictate one of the great reasons for the existence of the European Union, and one of its great successes - and it has been tremendously successful. There have been no major European wars since it was established. That was not the case in the previous centuries when the European Union did not exist. The European Union has also succeeded in economic development. It is now a major international player and may be one of the richest communities in the world. We must remember those major successes.

The nation state is not a suitable form of government in the modern world. For example, the head of cabinet at the European Commission's environment private office, Rolf Annerberg, recently reported to the European Commissioner for the Environment, Margot Wallström, that 84% of European citizens consider environmental protection to be a priority. In a situation such as the Chernobyl disaster, which affected many countries and was dealt with internationally, an individual nation state would be powerless. The same applies to whaling, which the EU has dealt with effectively. Such issues motivate us to hold greater expectations for the European Union in creating environmental policy or preventing crime, for example. More can be done through international co-operation. All transnational issues could be dealt with in an improved way, and much work remains to be done.

After the destruction of the Berlin Wall, many thought that major international tensions, divisions and wars might end. Yet, on 11 September we saw another frightening aspect of international violence. Europe has a potential peacekeeping role to play, which could be developed, possibly to create a European foreign policy. Such areas are open for discussion.

The Convention on the Future of Europe opened on 28 February, and the SDLP believes that it should provide a draft treaty that would serve as a European constitution. Perhaps it is time to take a bold and positive step by designing a constitution that would not need to be substantially altered every few years. The constant process of treaty revision through successive intergovernmental conferences may have reached its limit. Such a constitution would have to address certain issues.

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights should be given a constitutional basis and status. The enhancement of the political and social rights of our citizens must be a top priority, and Europe should never become indifferent to injustice. A key test for any new constitution will be its capacity to bring citizens closer to the European Union and its institutions, and that is a major internal problem for the EU. That will not be easy, given Europe's unique structure - it is not a state, but it has many of the characteristics and functions of one. The respective powers of the EU, the member states, and the regions of Europe should be delimited - a matter that is under consideration in the European Parliament.

Given the debate over the democratic legitimacy of the institutions of the EU, the possibility of direct or indirect elections for the presidency of the European Commission should be examined thoroughly. Although it is clearly a matter for each member state, there should be a minimum set of standards - for scrutiny by members in state Parliaments - for the activities of Government representatives in the Council of Ministers. That may be an accountability gap, but a set of standards could overcome many of the concerns of member state Parliaments about their role in the EU decision-making process, and obviate the need for another tier of organisation in the EU.

The distinctive feature of the EU is its commitment to providing decent social conditions for all its citizens - a commitment often defined by the term "the European social model". The SDLP believes that that model must be maintained and enhanced, as an EU limited to a free trade zone is not desirable. To that end, it is also important that the powers of the Council of Finance Ministers are balanced by an enhanced role for the Council of Employment and Social Affairs Ministers. In particular, employment and social indicator targets should be given comparable status to economic and monetary targets. The position of employment policy, health, education, equality, industrial relations and the treaties must all be upgraded.

The SDLP strongly believes that the single market and single currency are only sustainable if the citizens of Europe are assured of high levels of employment and social standards. It is also important for the political legitimacy of the EU that its citizens be convinced that it pursues economic prosperity and social justice.

Moreover, in a more global world, transatlantic relations cannot be a one-way street. Europe must provide greater assistance to those seeking peace and justice, which is one of the other issues identified as being a problem. Globalisation cannot go unrestrained: we must take hold of it and render it positively to democracy, and it must be regulated in an ethical manner.

All constitutions require periodic review and amendment, and we must ensure that that takes place in an adequate, open, and democratic fashion. The SDLP believes that a European constitution should be put to the people for acceptance. That would be a time for real decisions, and I hope that we do not lose the opportunity to make them.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I understand that it is essentially a take-note debate dealing with the Laeken declaration, but I want to make some observations that relate directly to Northern Ireland.

Devolution provides a major opportunity for us to ensure that our citizens benefit as much as possible from the EU. I am a member of a newly formed organisation called Northern Ireland into Europe, which recognises the role of the regions in relation to membership of the EU. I welcome the growing realisation among Members of the importance and impact of the EU. A recent debate on a Committee of the Centre report was helpful, constructive and worthwhile.

There are two main issues in the declaration. The first is the Europe of the regions. As Minister Haughey knows, I acted as an alternate on the Committee of the Regions for several years; it was a worthwhile experience.

The second issue is the enlargement of the European Union. We have all come to accept the effect that the European Union has on our everyday lives through its many Directives. However, European Union bureaucracy must be considerably reduced. European Union instruments must be simplified. Reform of the European Union is not only desirable, it is essential in developing national, regional and European institutions that are effective, efficient and democratic.

I welcome the establishment of the convention to discuss those issues and to consider the needs of European citizens in the twenty-first century. Europe today is very different from 50 years ago, when the first moves were made towards European co-operation. The needs of twenty-first-century citizens must be taken into account.

As the Laeken declaration suggests, it is vital that European institutions be brought closer to Europe's citizens. The declaration rightly questions the need for so many EU Directives, and it also acknowledges the need for greater regional consultation. This is one of the issues that has given the European Union a bad name. Many of the European Union Directives can be very helpful. Recently in the Chamber, I spoke about the European Directive on energy and on equalising cost to consumers throughout Europe. That is good legislation. However, talking about bananas does nothing to encourage association between the European Union and its citizens.

I have been concerned by the antipathy and ambivalence of many here towards the European Union. The European Union must now create a sense of ownership towards its institutions and between its citizens, not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the EU.

James Leslie spoke of the conference on 27 June. I am pleased that a broad spectrum of people will be involved in it. I also welcome the involvement of the Committee of the Regions to feed the views of the regions of Europe into this vital debate.

I look forward to the enlargement of the European Union, and Northern Ireland should look on that as an opportunity rather than a threat. Like other Members, I regularly receive 'The Parliament', and recently it has been assessing the developments in those countries that would like to be considered for accession. I am impressed by the progress in their economies, social development and democracy. It is encouraging to see that, for many of those countries, accession to the European Union is a major incentive.

Finally, Ministers and the Executive should note that all Members want to be involved in this debate. We can be constructive, and I look forward to further debate on this vital issue.

I declare an interest. I am a former head of the European Commission Office in Northern Ireland, a member of Team Europe, a speakers' panel, and, like Sean Neeson, a member of Northern Ireland in Europe.

I am one of the few - although I hope the numbers are growing - designated Unionists in the Chamber who is ready, willing and proud to be described as a truly committed European. The term "European Unionist" springs to mind, but I do not think that traditional party politics here is ready to embrace, let alone understand, that concept of political inclusivity - at least not for a while anyway.

As a European, I have become totally disillusioned, as Sean Neeson said, by the half-hearted approach that Northern Ireland has had to the hugely important and enormously exciting project that is the future of the European Union and Europe in general. Our entire demeanour has been to milk it dry and cry foul any time it asks us to do anything in return, such as clean up our beaches, ensure that our animals are free from disease or even label our children's toys correctly.

Does the Member agree that some local councils, such as Newtownabbey Council, have been actively engaged in the expansionist aspect of Europe to the east in the town of Rybnik in Poland, and that many people in Northern Ireland are involved at that level?

Superb stuff and more of the same. I appreciate exactly what Mr Robinson says, and I shall refer to some of his remarks. Several Unionists here are beginning to see the light with Europe.

As the junior Minister said, one of the key problems is how we simplify the law-making procedures, the framework Directives, et cetera. However, although that is important, it is also important to start allaying some of the misconceptions about those procedures. All too often when good things happen in Europe we say that we are wonderful. However, when bad things happen, we say that the Brussels bureaucrats are interfering again.

People must understand how the system works. Interfering Brussels busybodies do not make the laws. Laws are decided at European Council meetings where the UK representative is the democratically elected Minister. More often than not, thanks to devolution, that Minister can be from here. If Brid Rodgers were in the Chamber she could testify to that, as she has attended meetings several times to negotiate for Northern Ireland.

There is no doubt that Northern Ireland has reaped tremendous benefits from belonging to the European Union. This debate is about giving something back. We have had peace programmes, a common agricultural policy, structural funds, cross-border initiatives, INTERREG - the list is endless. I agree that we have not always spent the money wisely. A new industry is growing here - consultants are teaching us how to access the money rather than how to make it.

That said, we must realise that we should be using the funding not as a sofa but as a springboard; we have not done that often enough. There has been discussion about enlargement. We know that the money will run out in 2006. What will we do when those more needy countries - the 10 in the first raft to enter the European Union - get preference? That is part of the debate on the future of Europe.

For example, do we follow Sinn Féin's line - I am sorry that none of its Members is present - in the Nice referendum, and do everything in our power to keep Eastern bloc countries out so that we can have more spoils for ourselves? Or do we begin in earnest to play a constructive role in building the future of Europe?

Northern Ireland is described as a constitutional region of the European Union, and its people are being asked their opinion on the future of Europe. In my vast experience of European affairs, I have never before known the people of Northern Ireland to be asked that. It is hugely important.

What is our reply? According to the motion, we "take note". We should be doing a great deal more than that, and I welcome the fact that we are doing so. We must take positions on the main issues.

What is the problem? For many in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the European Union, Brussels is foreign, faceless, and far too far away. I shall repeat that because Members who have just entered the Chamber may appreciate the description. For many, Brussels is foreign, faceless and too far away.

There are simple remedies. The problem is that the Laeken declaration describes those remedies as the delimination of power, status of charters, et cetera. All that Euro-talk is far too hard to understand. Let us deal with the problems: foreign, faceless and too far away.

How do we deal with Brussels being too far away? I agree with Mr Ken Robinson that the role of the regions should be strengthened. We must bring Europe closer to home and to its citizens. Thus, it becomes less far away.

We had a debate on subsidiarity, but we should come out of the closet and mention the "F" word - federalism. In the days of Margaret Thatcher, we were taught that federalism was a centralisation of power in Brussels. However, the German, Spanish and Belgian examples show us that federalism is not about centralising power in Brussels - it is about decentralising it. Sure enough, it means less power to the capital of the nation state and more power to the regions. That is an interesting concept that we must debate more fully. We should not be afraid of that debate. I appreciated Éamonn ONeill's contribution that he was not sure that the nation state is a suitable form of government in the modern world.

The debate on federalism should be brought out into the open. In the United Kingdom, it is called devolution; the European Union calls it subsidiarity as a means of avoiding the "F" word. However, it is important that we debate it.

The next consideration is the idea that Europe is faceless. Some of the questions that have been raised today are valid. Why are meetings of the Council of Ministers not held in public? It is wrong that they are held behind closed doors. I was a journalist in Brussels behind those closed doors, hoping to get stories about what was coming out of those Council sessions. The UK Minister would tell us one story, and the French Minister would tell us a totally different one. We never knew who won and who did not. If the meetings are open, we can judge for ourselves, which is very important.

The notion of an elected President is fascinating. That would certainly get us more involved in European affairs. Perhaps a President would have more powers.

It would be worth examining the idea of a second chamber. I am disappointed that, according to Mr Poots, the Committee of the Centre has ruled that out. A second chamber with representatives of national Parliaments would bring it closer to home and make it less faceless.

Many other ideas have been mooted, but I shall not take up more time than both Ministers together. We want more transparency and to bring Europe closer to home. We have something to offer. We are a region that is emerging from conflict, and the means by which we are making that transition with help from our European and American friends could serve as a tremendous example to other regions in the world. We should start to flex our regional muscle and contribute to the debate on Europe. Foreign matters can be a cause of fascination, not a cause of fear.

I am not sure that it is wise to engage in a take-note debate at six o'clock in the evening. There have been some ridiculous comments about Europe.

The Member is operating on Brussels time.

I was simply hoping to get home early. However, I did hear the SDLP abandon Nationalism. Suddenly, they have become Unionists, and Éamonn ONeill says he wants to be a European Unionist. National Socialism and Republicanism are no longer relevant; there has been a volte-face, and the SDLP has left the junior Minister on his own. Its members have suddenly become European Unionists. That is interesting, because then I have heard someone else speak who was a Unionist one day, became something else for the next, but is back to being a Unionist this afternoon. We are becoming well used to conversions and lapses.

Let us look at what is happening. The Convention on the Future of Europe has been called because Europe is in a mess. It has no relevance to people. The number of people who participate in European elections declines every election year. Europe must look at how it can become relevant again. The convention has set out a three-stage process but asks 64 questions. In the 'European Voice' magazine we can see how the disparity and disagreements begin. The Centre for European Reform has suggested that

It is apparently not enough that 104 people be part of this convention - it was suggested in the debate that the 240 regions of an extended Europe be included. There will not merely be competing voices, there will be a large number of competing voices. There will be great difficulty in answering the 64 questions sensibly and coherently.

Peter Hain, the United Kingdom's Minister for Europe, set out the United Kingdom's position. Speaking to the Scottish Parliament, he said:

That is our position exactly. Let us not get carried away into flights of fancy and rainbow politics. Let us deal with what is being offered in this take-note debate.

In an answer to me earlier this year, the junior Ministers stated:

The convention's parallel forum is a web site. Members who are IT-minded can make a substantive contribution that way.

Members are invited to make their contributions at a conference on 27 June. Ideas are emerging to make Europe more easily read by simplifying the treaties. Gattinara and Monsù say:

That is the reason for the convention. Europe has become a stack of uninterpretable protocols and Directives, some of which are getting into the system in spurts and gulps. Some of our Departments are having difficulty in meeting their deadlines. Northern Ireland will be heavily fined by Europe if it cannot deliver on time.

Some people claim - and Mr Éamonn ONeill made a great point of this - that we are getting a great deal of money from Europe. However, the United Kingdom is a net contributor to the extent of around £1,900 a head. In 1973, we were net contributors of around £500 a head. It now costs us almost four times as much to be Europeans. We do get money from Europe, but the reason for this convention - and I welcome it - is the fact that we shall get an opportunity to put forward a different perspective from that of rainbow politics.

Europe does not have a record of being successful on any unified front throughout history. The first great attempt at unifying Europe was by the great Church, and that ended in disaster. Since then it has fragmented. What has been suggested under this great convention of the regions would take us back into history to the great Christian state of the Holy Roman Empire, which did not even have 240 regions. What has been suggested is, therefore, a historically backward step rather than a forward one.

The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre was correct to point out that the American Business Association, which is the largest single business grouping, did more business with the United Kingdom than with any other region. Therefore, all those who hail commercial importance and global activity should not think in European terms only. Commercially, we think globally, but we should not put all our eggs in one European basket, given that we have to spend three years and three stages deciphering the present ritual of protocols. By 2004, we will have as many more protocols and Directives to be simplified, and it will take another four years to make sure Europe is in a real mess.

The conference will be a great opportunity to debate and discuss six areas of concern, rather than having three areas to discuss. Europe needs be examined and considered - but considered with reality.

The Laeken declaration starts with some expansive claims about how the European Union and its predecessors have promoted prosperity and peace in Europe. The first page of the declaration states that

I want to evaluate the contribution that the European Union has made to prosperity and peace in Northern Ireland, because we are thinking today about Northern Ireland's unique input to that convention. It is true - and many Members have referred to it - that we have been net financial beneficiaries from Europe to the order of several hundred million pounds a year in transfers from Brussels, mainly through the farming policy. However, as Mr Gibson has pointed out, the United Kingdom as a whole is still a substantial net financial contributor to the Union.

There are two aspects of overall unified policies across Europe that do not seem to have worked well for Northern Ireland. It could be well argued that, in the long run, the prospects for the farming and fishing industries here would be much better if the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, which in the past week has been subject to reforms and revisions, were to collapse.

It is likely that they will unravel, given their cost and the impact of EU enlargement to the east, which is a driver behind the Laeken declaration and this process.

Mr ONeill referred to the need to use the European Union to give an ethical steer to globalisation. The outlook for the Third World, especially parts of Africa and Latin America, would be much better if the European Union, the United States and Japan did not distort world agriculture patterns, especially the food trade, to such an extent.

The Laeken declaration emphasises Europe's peace- building role in Northern Ireland. The impression is sometimes given that the European Union was a major broker of our so-called peace process. That is almost certainly an exaggeration, although some help was undoubtedly given, for which we should be grateful. However, the impact of the so-called peace and reconciliation money, derived from the Delors packages, will become clear. It is feared that some of that funding will have a limited effect. Similarly, it is absurd to claim, as the Laeken declaration seems to suggest, that the EU is the main cause of peace in western Europe since 1945 - I should imagine that the Cold War and NATO had a part to play in that regard. Furthermore, it could be argued that aspects of foreign policy that arose from the EU had a malign effect on Yugoslavia during its disintegration and troubles of the 1990s.

The best position on the future of Europe is one of Euro-realism: we are part of the European Union, but that does not mean that we should give all its institutions a blank cheque, as some of them have damaged the interests of Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom, or both. Culturally and geographically, we are part of Europe, but we have strong links with the rest of the world, especially the United States and the Commonwealth. We shall rely mainly on our own efforts to build peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. Although the European Union is important, it is a facilitator, at best, for such activity.

I wish to concentrate on the questions that were posed at the convention. First, how can the EU treaties be simplified? That seems to be a good aspiration; however, I doubt whether it could be achieved if we continue to strive to fulfil the increasingly impossible goal of achieving policy harmony among all European Union member states. Harmony among the 15 members is difficult to achieve; therefore, I cannot imagine how much more difficult it will be if, or when, the European Union expands to comprise 20, 25 or 30 member states. If the European Union is to survive as a confederation of states it will have to accept a good deal of variable geometry - I apologise for using such Euro-jargon. In other words, subgroups of member countries would form different "sub-clubs" with common standards on certain issues, while other member countries would opt out. That structure already exists with respect to the euro; it could also apply to immigration, farming or fisheries policies.

The relationship between the EU institutions and the member states is a further issue. The Blair Government seem to oppose a delineation of competencies between, for example, the Commission and member states. In theory, the idea of setting cast-iron limits on the total powers of the Commission is attractive; however, in practice, any such barriers would be breached progressively.

In the United States, notwithstanding the constitutional provision that all powers that are not declared as resting at the centre - Washington DC - remain with the governments of the states, powers have drifted to the centre over the past 200 years. That is one reason why I disagree with the praise that Ms Morrice gave to so-called "federal systems". Historically, in practice they tend to centralise over time.

Similarly, on the third question relating to the Laeken declaration, regarding so-called subsidiarity, I recognise the apparent attraction of the ideal but doubt its practicality. Subsidiarity can be a "weasel word" because of the problems of defining and enforcing it. The Assembly must be careful about recommending the pursuit of separate regional negotiating lines by, for example, the component parts of the United Kingdom. Occasionally, Northern Ireland is best served with regard to relative bargaining power within the EU by a common United Kingdom position.

The fourth question relating to the Laeken declaration addresses the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I remain to be convinced about it. If each member country has already incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as the United Kingdom has done, it is unclear to me what additional protection is provided by the EU itself subscribing. Incidentally, the Republic of Ireland has yet to subscribe to the ECHR.

The final question relating to the Laeken declaration is to do with how "more democracy" can be promoted within the EU institutions. As Mahatma Ghandi said of Western civilisation, "It would be a good idea". There are great concerns with that. Like Ms Morrice, I wonder why Council of Ministers' meetings cannot be held in a more transparent way. The European Central Bank in Frankfurt am Main is an example of how massively significant decisions are already being made in a way that is well out of touch with many of the peoples of Europe. Is the common interest rate that is set across the euro zone truly appropriate for the South of Ireland, which is threatened with inflation and a rise in the price of houses and other assets?

The long development of the euro will probably require not just the centralisation of monetary policy-making, the setting of interest rates, and so on - and, indeed, a common European exchange rate relative to the dollar and the Japanese yen - but the centralisation of fiscal policy, such as taxing and spending power In that regard, there may be a time bomb ticking away that has worrying implications for Northern Ireland and the entire United Kingdom. Many continental European social security systems, and particularly their pension systems, have large liabilities building up. It must be asked whether, if the United Kingdom joined the euro, Northern Ireland would become liable for bailing out the Italian, German or French Governments by funding their state pension schemes in the future - leading to our citizens becoming poorer.

Even the d'Estaing Convention on the Future of Europe is less than wholly open, because a 12-member presidium decides which issues will be discussed by the convention, rather than the 105 members as a whole. The word "presidium" is interesting because, I believe, the old Soviet Union's governing Cabinet was called that.

I do not think that an elected President would be a good thing. Obviously, those who favour euro-federalism can look towards that. I do not think that there is a sufficient common European political culture to warrant it, although perhaps the Prime Minister is looking for his next job - for when he leaves UK politics.

The Laeken declaration and associated convention are important. However, there is a danger that they will remain a babble of conflicting voices. Perhaps I should say a "Babel" of conflicting voices - separate voices on pro- or anti-federalism or on whether the EU is viewed as a destination or a final process. The d'Estaing convention is unlikely to parallel the convention of Philadelphia, which produced the United States constitution in the late 1780s. Europe is not now, and perhaps never will be, ready for a United States of Europe.

Many people believe that the treaties on which the EU rests have become a tangle of regulations. There is a serious lack of clarity surrounding the European articles. It is, therefore, necessary that the treaties be simplified for the sake of open and accountable government.

It is in everyone's interests that the EU's objectives, powers and policies be unambiguous. There must not be codification. I do not want a European superstate, nor a one-size-fits-all approach.

Devolution was meant to give us accountable and representative government. Therefore, any future convention must respect the important role carried out in the Assembly. I call for a greater role for regional Assemblies to help maintain producers' incomes, encourage more guarantees in food safety and quality, and preserve our rural landscape. The EU was set up for practical reasons, and we must ensure that it does not stray from those purposes. It should not become something in its own right. I urge the Commission to simplify and clarify the common agricultural policy, reduce the need for red tape and help farmers. There must be an urgent review and fair implementation of EU laws.

Our sovereign state still has a very real part to play in today's society, especially in the light of the massive turnouts for the recent Jubilee celebrations. In the aftermath of the Laeken declaration, I call for a more accountable EU that will not impinge on matters concerning our regional and national legislatures.

The Laeken declaration broke new ground when 15 Prime Ministers referred to constitutional regions and invited them to play their full part in the debate on the future of Europe. As individuals and elected representatives, we are probably more familiar with EU regulations than most. In the past, there have been issues about square strawberries, correctly coloured carrots and the diameter and shape of bananas. Indeed, it has been said that there is too much chocolate in our chocolate.

Although we are aware of those issues, we also find it difficult to understand why regulations should come from the EU to do away with things that we have had and that have been of no harm to anyone. Those highly publicised issues astounded many of us. People wonder what real impact the EU has on their daily lives. The Laeken declaration has made a move to at least discuss, and, I hope, to address, the problems and the perceptions of the EU held by many people here.

The Committee of the Regions should be given more powers, which should be enhanced and built upon. People see the EU as a source for grants, whether they are for farming or other issues, or for peace money to address community problems. That is the perception that many people have of the EU. As some Members said, it is a way to get money to use here. We are all aware that we pay out more than we receive.

Our Objective 1 status will disappear in a few years. In tandem with that, other countries will be admitted to the EU, which will directly impact upon everyone. The Laeken declaration has provided a forum to discuss the changes.

The declaration looks at the simplification of the treaties, as has been mentioned. No one can say that that has happened in the past. Indeed, it has been quite the opposite. A tangle of regulations exists instead. People see Europe as a bureaucratic nightmare or a web that prevents them from getting in or out of the process. They also see it as a place where decisions are made, but far divorced from where we live and our problems. If European citizens knew what their constitutional rights, were that would be an enormous advantage. If this process becomes a pretext for centralising power and creating a superstate, no one will be interested, so we need to be careful what goes forward.

In relation to the limitation, many feel that it lacks clarity, with the result that European citizens find it difficult to understand how powers are divided between the European Union and the member states. They have the impression that the European Union intervenes in areas in which it should not and, conversely, does not intervene in areas in which action at European level is necessary.

Some of the issues are raised in the Laeken declaration. Subsidiarity is one of the biggest worries, and Members have all commented on it. People have said that decisions are taken, and I will give one example; other Members have given examples that are detrimental and create hardship for, for example, the fishing industry. EU decisions are taken in Brussels that ignore Northern Ireland as being on the periphery of Europe. That has a direct impact on jobs, the economy and our business sector. Where is the accountability? That is what we want to see coming out of this process - accountability. Where is the responsible attitude that should be given and, indeed, offered? If it turns out that the Laeken declaration is only to be a talking shop, our paper mountain will be disastrous. For many of us and for many of the people whom we represent, the EU is over there, and we are over here. If the Laeken declaration can address that issue, at least we are starting to move. I want to see European decisions that affect our constituents being discussed openly and in a transparent fashion, and with the regions, before any Directive whatsoever from Europe is made.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to close this debate on the future of Europe. It is important to point out at this stage that I am only closing this debate in the House. The debate generally in Northern Ireland and Europe on the future of Europe is only just beginning. I welcome the contributions made by many Members today, and I would like to respond to some of the issues raised. First, however, I want to talk about the context in which we approach the issues raised in the debate.

James Leslie drew attention to our desire to engage the Assembly and, indeed, wider civic society in Northern Ireland on the issues involved in the whole question of the future of Europe. Today's debate is part of our engagement with the Assembly, and, in addition, we will be talking about this regularly to the Committee of the Centre. The conference that we plan for 27 June is part of the process of working with civic society. It will focus on the future of Europe, but its purpose goes wider than that. The conference will be the first step towards an EU forum, which will draw in the key sectors of our society, and enable us, not only to consider the future of Europe, but to address regularly and continuously the question of how we work together to deal with the issues that arise out of our membership of the European Union. It should also help to maximise our contribution to the European Union and the benefit that we derive from membership.

There is a need to take a step back from the day-to-day activity of politics and life and consider Northern Ireland's place as a region of the European Union and what its place should be. The European Union institutions cover a huge range of issues. Some have greater importance and resonance here than others do, but we need to focus our reference on what is really important to us. To attempt to range over all the issues addressed by the European Union would be futile and a waste of our efforts.

To that end, I am pleased to report that last week the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, working with the Department of Finance and Personnel, agreed projects on which the assistance of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE) would be sought. Members have consistently pointed out the need to use the expertise that NICE has built up over years - in my case, they have been pushing at an open door. For a considerable time, I have been convinced that the Executive must supplement their existing efforts by using people with expertise based on experience derived from working with key players in the European scene and from dealing with European matters in Northern Ireland and further afield.

We have put a means of utilising that expertise into place. In the coming months, NICE will lead, and seek to support, a process from which we hope a vision of Northern Ireland as a region of the EU will emerge. NICE will work in participation with the key sectors. The work will be publicly available, and I look forward to a tangible outcome that will assist the Executive and the key sectors in Northern Ireland society to develop new thinking and new ways of doing things. It will be an outward-looking expression of our role.

Minister Leslie has already reflected on our work to develop an EU strategy. That strategy will draw together departmental priorities and needs alongside the wider EU policy context. We have met departmental Ministers to identify the issues to be addressed, as well as the clear priorities already established in areas such as agriculture and the environment.

The strategy, on which we shall elaborate, will also examine our influence on the UK Government's position overall and our means of interaction, both with the other devolved Administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh and with the Government in Dublin.

The debate will deal with the core issues of how the EU can be accessible to the people of Europe and how a better connection can be made in the context of enlargement and against the background of citizens who feel increasingly remote from Government, particularly from the EU institutions. The debate is very important, and I am glad that Jane Morrice emphasised that so vigorously. We cannot afford to stay out of the debate; we should enter it and think our way through it.

As members of the European Community, we have a voice on how Europe should be shaped for the future; that voice should be heard. As Europeans, we have an interest in how an enlarged EU will operate and what that will mean for Northern Ireland.

As a region, Northern Ireland needs to consider what place regions should have in an enlarged EU. That was a constant theme in the contributions to today's debate. We must also reflect on the influence we have, and on how that can be best targeted for maximum impact.

Those are among the core questions to be addressed in the debate. Today we have begun to debate them, and they will be discussed for some time to come. It was not our intention to reach conclusions today, but rather to open up those ideas for further examination and exploration.

I want to reflect on some of the ideas that today's debate offered. First, I welcome the contribution by Mr Poots on behalf of the Committee of the Centre. I am sorry that he is not present. His measured contribution helpfully teased out several core issues for the Convention on the Future of Europe, and those will help in the wider debate we seek to develop. As the debate moves forward, I look forward to further discussion with him and with the Committee of the Centre.

Rather than deal with the contributions in detail, I will refer simply to the themes that arose in the speeches. Common to almost all contributions was, first of all, an insistence on the need for less bureaucracy in European decision-making and policy processing. Secondly, Members stressed the need for greater simplification of structures and instruments to bring the EU closer to people by making it more user-friendly and easier to understand. Thirdly, almost all Members who spoke were in favour of greater accountability and transparency - democratisation - of the EU's processes, although there were differing opinions as to how that might be facilitated.

Several Members, in particular Ken Robinson, stressed the need for formal and informal networking. Mr Robinson made the interesting point that that is easier for regional legislatures, such as our own, than it is for national Parliaments. Also, the need to strengthen the role of the regions and to bring decision-making closer to the ground, where practical, through the subsidiarity process was a constant theme.

Different opinions emerged on the overall objective and final shape of Europe. Several Members, including Jane Morrice, favoured greater integration of Europe, moving towards a more federal, or confederal, model.

Members disagreed on the need for a draft treaty or a constitution for Europe. Éamonn ONeill suggested that, if there were such a process, there should be a referendum to give the new European arrangements greater legitimacy. Jane Morrice mentioned the possibility of having an elected presidency in Europe to give greater popular involvement in decision-making. The possibility of a second chamber was mentioned, and there was constant reference to the need to more clearly delineate the competencies of the various levels of decision-making in the EU.

Éamonn ONeill referred to the need to balance the regulation of the free market and the promotion of industrial and economic development with the continued elaboration and development of a European social model. He spoke of the need to have regard for the EU's global responsibilities for international development and peacekeeping. He also dwelt on the issue of human rights and equality. However, not all Members who spoke agreed with him.

Oliver Gibson made an interesting point about the SDLP abandoning Nationalism. I am sorry to contradict him, but my party continues to believe in the national ideal of a united Ireland, and that is what Nationalism means in the context of Irish politics. However, Nationalism in Europe means something quite different. It represents tattooed bully-boy skinheads in jackboots who enforce racist views that would not find widespread sympathy in this community. Mr Gibson also accused my party of abandoning National Socialism. Given that it has never adopted a National Socialist model, I find that theory interesting.

Dr Birnie made a considered speech that gave me food for thought. I understand his point about the federal model in the United States and the gradual and seemingly inexorable expansion of federal power. If the United States model were the only federal model, that would be a fair point. As Dr Birnie said, latent power in the United States lies with the federal Government, and only specified powers rest with the states. The reverse is the case in Canada and Australia, for instance. The powers of the federal Governments in those countries are delineated in their constitutions, and all latent or residual powers lie with the provinces and the states.

I may be wrong, but I understand that that is precisely the situation with the American constitution: it confers defined powers to the federal Government. It is principally the provision on the regulation of interstate commerce that, over the past 200 years, has allowed the gradual drift to Washington DC.

I was going to make that point. The Supreme Court has been the motor for the expansion of federal power in the United States because its expansionism rests on provisions such as interstate commerce. The exact case that gave rise to that was the Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States - I am showing off slightly there.

However, Dr Birnie raised several interesting points. He legitimately questioned the effect of the net inward transfer of resources from the European Union. He questioned the extent to which that has been responsible for economic development here, and whether its contribution was a lasting one. Net inward transfers have made a useful input to our infrastructure's development. However, they have not been as important a factor in our economic growth as they have been in the Republic of Ireland, where they have made a useful impact. If net inward transfers of wealth were the key factor in generating economic growth, then, given that every year we derive approximately £4·5 billion more from the Exchequer in London than we generate, our economic growth rate should be about 10 times that of the Republic - but it is not. One must question where the wellsprings of economic growth are. Dr Birnie appropriately raised the matter, and it requires further debate.

I also recognise Dr Birnie's point about the limitations of a common currency on countries such as the Republic in determining interest rates, and so forth, to regulate the economy and combat inflation. The last time that Europe had a common currency was under the Roman Empire, when the denarius was used from the Black Sea to the Atlantic. I am not sure what they did about interest rates in those days. We need to explore those issues, because economies can be regulated in ways other than manipulating interest rates.

Having gone over the general themes that arose in the debate, I welcome Members' contributions. This is the first stage of a debate that will continue until at least 2004. We have not sought to set the terms of or limit the debate in any way; we have simply reflected the fact that the Executive will need, in time, to consider their contribution to the Convention on the Future of Europe under the chairmanship of Giscard d'Estaing. We will then be able to draw on the views raised in this and further debates, in our discussions with the Committee of the Centre and in exchanges we conduct in any other forum.

We want any input that we make from the Administration to the convention to reflect as closely as possible the views that are widely held in this society.

Adjourned at 5.59 pm.