JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 12 Dec 2002

Vol. 1 No. 5

National Forum on Europe.

Chairman

I welcome the chairman of the National Forum on Europe, Senator Maurice Hayes, Walter Kirwan, its Secretary General, and Geraldine Byrne Nason, its deputy Secretary General, Dominic Haugh of the Socialist Party, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Tony Browne, Noel Mulcahy, Dan Boyle, Senator Mary Henry and Niamh Bhreathnach. I am the leader of the Fine Gael group at the forum.

Seven weeks after the Nice referendum, this committee and the forum are still in post-Nice mode. We are trying to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, by taking the public for granted on EU issues, and that we develop the momentum and interest built up during the Nice referendum campaign. It might be useful, in the first instance, to outline how each body sees its work developing over the coming months. Our concerns are similar to those expressed at the forum and it is important to aim for a degree of complementarity in our work, while recognising the clear differences between the forum and the committee.

I will give a brief outline of the committee's work over the coming months. My colleagues might wish to add to this. I will then invite the chairman of the forum and its members to do likewise, after which there can be a general discussion. It is not necessary to speak in detail about the new scrutiny arrangements. Deputy Carey chaired the meeting at short notice last week and recently outlined the detail of these arrangements to the forum. I have also spoken to the chairman of the forum about the work of the committee.

Before today's meeting, the scrutiny sub-committee met to consider 19 Commission legislative proposals and identified four which merit detailed examination in the relevant Oireachtas committees. The committee has been meeting in private, but it cannot continue to do that and will meet in public in the near future. The press will then see the work that is being done in the scrutiny process.

There are two major tasks for the joint committee in the near future in addition to our ongoing work of shadowing the work of the Government in the area of scrutiny of European affairs. First, there is the Convention on the Future of Europe. For many people in Ireland and throughout Europe, the convention is the only EU show in town. We are working to ensure a wider understanding of the convention's work. On 29 November, we held an initial detailed discussion with the Government and Oireachtas delegates to the convention. It was one of the most interesting meetings in recent times and it was well attended.

We are now planning three more meetings in January and February to look, in turn, at each of the 11 working groups. The proposed timetable for these meetings is as follows. There will be a meeting on 17 January to deal with the issues of national parliaments, subsidiarity, complementary competences and simplification. We are proposing to have a second meeting with the convention members on 24 January dealing with external relations, defence and legal personality. We hope to have a third meeting the week beginning 10 February, on a date yet to be decided, to deal with freedom, security and justice, fundamental rights, economic governance and social policy. These three meetings will mark the end of the joint committee's induction into the work of the convention - as a follow-up to the general brain-storming we have had already - but only the beginning of our close engagement with all of Ireland's delegates as the convention moves into its most important phase.

The committee does not attempt to give a specific mandate to the convention delegates. Instead, there is an exchange of views which is beneficial to both sides. Views differ as to what the eventual result of the convention will be and about what will fall into the subsequent intergovernmental conference. Regardless of the result, we need to ensure that the committee is as involved as much as possible with the work of the Intergovernmental Conference and will continue to be involved with the convention.

The secondary major task of the committee is to inform the public about what is going on in the EU generally and to try to ensure their ongoing engagement with these issues. We are putting in place plans for a series of meetings around the country. I hope that by putting EU issues with a local dimension, which might be described as the bigger issues such as enlargement and the convention, on the agenda at the same time we can demonstrate to people the importance of the EU in their everyday lives. In this way I hope that we can also convince them that their voice on these issues does make a difference because we intend to invite local groups and representatives of larger groups at a regional level to the meetings. The first meeting will be at the end of January in Castlebar. I hope this will make some contribution towards addressing the continuing democratic deficit.

Looking at our programme for January and February, including domestic visits, foreign visits, the ordinary work of the committee and the sub-committee, there is a huge amount of work ahead of us. I am glad to note that the forum has mentioned resources. In all of this time, I will be absent from my office and there is nobody there to look after my own work while I am out of the office. The committee itself is struggling along with the resources it has at its disposal and the committee secretariat has been doing well with what it has available to it. If we are to do this job properly, we need to be properly resourced. I am glad to see that the forum has raised this issue. The topics for discussion at the first meeting in Mayo in January may include Objective One status, enlargement and the work of the joint committee to explain to people what we are doing.

In our shared efforts to bridge the democratic deficit, the following two linked questions must be addressed. How do we ensure the interest and engagement of the press and how do we ensure the interest and engagement of the public? We need to come to terms with the fact that the work of the sub-committee involves a great deal of detail. There are really good stories for the press in the work of the sub-committee in terms of proposals and directives in a range of areas such as transport, justice and finance, but we will have to work on making this information user-friendly so that we do not give documents to the press which are too detailed or filled with jargon, resulting in the message being lost.

We have all seen a fall-off in press coverage since the October referendum. This is understandable in some respects. However, even before the referendum we had launched into the current process which will produce the next treaty for the Union. The end product of this process will be ambitious. It will be possibly the most significant treaty since the Treaty of Rome. That on its own is an issue worthy of more press and public interest. We are hoping to assist, as the forum does, in bringing these issues to the people.

I welcome Senator Maurice Hayes as Chairman of the forum. I would welcome his views, in particular, on how the level of interest of the press might be improved and how we might create sustained interest. The committee is willing to co-operate with the forum in this regard, notwithstanding the fact that we have different remits.

Senator M. Hayes

It gives me great pleasure to visit the committee for the second time to update members on the work of the National Forum on Europe. We are now developing a useful relationship by keeping each other informed and having an opportunity to exchange views on the critical debate proceeding at European level.

I am particularly grateful that members of this committee dedicate time and energy to the work of the forum. Deputy Pat Carey addressed us this morning and has kept us up to date with the committee's work on the improved scrutiny process. Others who have spoken to us include yourself, Chairman, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and Senators Dardis, Ormonde and Quinn.

Chairman, you spoke about the post-Nice feeling. I thought for a moment you were going to talk about post-Nice treaty stress but, luckily, we have avoided that. We take the view that it is hugely important to maintain the debate that was started. In Le Monde last Friday, Alain Juppé referred in interesting terms to "le grand debate nationale" which was held in Ireland and commented that the Irish people on either side of the debate were well informed on these issues. It would be a pity to lose that momentum.

Since we last met, the forum has had an intensive period of activity. We held 47 meetings and visited 20 cities and towns. We held four national conferences aimed at those groups which earlier research had suggested were the least engaged in the European project. They were: women, young people, farming, fishing and rural groups, and industrial and service workers. We have come through the period of the referendum and the Irish people have decided. Enlargement is taken for granted and now our focus is on the convention. We regard the convention as hugely important and we should take a constant and intelligent interest in it.

A constant theme during the second phase of our debate was the view that there is a real need at all levels to reconnect the debate on Europe with the ordinary people of Europe, and, more locally, with the Irish people, and that the key responsibility for that lies with the role of the national parliaments. The general view in the forum was that the fundamental building block of the European Union was and would continue to be the nation state, and that most Europeans felt the strongest sense of identity with their own national institutions. The European Parliament also has a vital role in bringing a wider European perspective to bear and is complementary to the stronger role needed for the national parliaments. It is, therefore, vitally important that national parliaments become capable of playing a more active role in the scrutiny of policy and proposals coming from Brussels.

The general sense of our debate - reflected in one of our two reports - was that significant upgrading was required for the Dáil and Seanad fully to assume an effective role of scrutiny. We were impressed by the new scrutiny arrangements introduced in early summer and being tested in this parliamentary session as a start down this road.

As we track the debate at the convention, members of the forum have decided to address the substance of the debate by subject and to work from the reports of the working groups. On 28 November, we had an in-depth debate on the subject of subsidiarity and the role of national parliaments. We have developed the practice of producing a short report on these within a week or two. Members have the paper which sets out the broad lines of the discussion of the forum on that day.

I will highlight a few key points. All forum members agreed that national parliaments, through their individual scrutiny systems, have a positive role to play in securing the legitimacy of the European Union and that this role should be further strengthened in the upcoming treaty. The feeling was that the national parliaments should keep a closer watch over the evolution of policy relating to Europe and monitor the principle of subsidiarity. Most speakers also argued that devising one system of parliamentary scrutiny that would suit all needs was likely to be unworkable. Given the varying levels and patterns of scrutiny prevailing and the cultural and national identity concerns, no one mechanism would suit all systems.

We were also attracted to the concept of a European week, which was originally suggested by Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP of the Irish delegation to the convention, which would involve national parliaments debating in the same week at the beginning of each year the European Commission's proposed legislative programme with actual participation by a member of the Commission. This received a favourable response in the forum. There was some debate as to the relevance of the nationality of the Commissioner who would address a parliament. Some felt it should be non-national. Others felt that, due to the impartial nature of the Commission, this did not apply and a national of the country would be better placed to interact with his parliament.

A new institution or mechanism, identified in the report of the convention working group on national parliaments as the congress, combining representation from both the national parliaments and the European Parliament was uniformly criticised. Dr. Maurer, who addressed this at that meeting, proposed the strengthening of COSAC, the inter-parliamentary co-ordination body already in place, describing it as the best body for an informal interchange of information about draft legislation of the European Union. Several members of the forum supported this approach.

The early warning system and its yellow card mechanism as proposed by the working group on subsidiarity was seen on initial examination to be a positive development, but some doubts were expressed about the effectiveness and usefulness of the instrument. It is not yet clear to whom parliaments would address the yellow cards.

The approved system of scrutiny here in the joint committee was generally welcomed. A number of speakers pointed out that, due to the large amount of documents emanating from the EU which warrant scrutiny, proper resourcing of the committee is a major priority. Although the current economic climate makes allocation of spending difficult, it was felt that this was an area which warranted increased resourcing to ensure a comprehensive reporting system. This was something to which we drew attention in our earlier report in welcoming this. There was widespread support for upgrading the resource base dedicated to the work in Leinster House. I undertook to convey this to the relevant authorities and have done so by way of a letter to the Taoiseach, a copy of which I have given to the Chairman.

It was felt the principle of subsidiarity should begin at home and it was suggested that an initiative should be established as to how best to implement subsidiarity within the Irish system. In particular, members called for close attention to the level of local self-government, and voices raised were in favour of incorporating the European Charter of Local Self-Government into the treaties in a future European Constitution. There was agreement among forum members that the areas of subsidiarity and the role of national parliaments would have to be revisited in the context of the institutional debate due to take place in the convention in the early part of next year.

Within the Irish context, the role of the Seanad was discussed. Some speakers suggested that the Seanad is an appropriate place to debate European issues with the participation of both MEPs and Commissioners.

All forum members agreed that the identification of the role of the citizen in the future architecture of the EU was very important. The structure of the mechanisms that are eventually agreed should improve an individual's ability to identify with the institutions and their decisions. It was agreed that the EU should be seen as something with which the ordinary person can interact and can understand.

We are beginning to develop that. We have set ourselves a series of meetings in the spring. On 14 January when the Dáil and Seanad are not sitting, we will meet in Dublin Castle to discuss the big picture of the convention, the draft constitutional treaty and proposed changes to institutions. On 23 January, we will hold a plenary meeting in Dublin Castle on the convention working group on justice and home affairs. We will have the great advantage of the attendance of Deputy John Bruton, who chairs that working group. We will hold another plenary meeting on 20 February on the working group on the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU adhesion to the European Convention on Human Rights.

We will hold regional meetings. We will hold one in Longford on 3 February and another on 24 February. We hope to cover areas which we have not visited before, such as Wicklow, east Galway, south Tipperary, Sligo and the Kerry Gaeltacht. On 6 March, we will hold another plenary meeting in Dublin Castle on the working groups on external action and defence. Added to the possibility of regional meetings in the venues I mentioned on 10 and 24 March, this is our way of bringing the debate to the people.

We see ourselves serving a double purpose. One is to expose to the public the subjects being debated in the convention. The other is to obtain feedback from the public, people who speak at the meetings and members of the forum which we hope will be of assistance to Irish representatives at the Convention on the Future of Europe when they deal with issues there. We are conscious that we are not the only locus for debate. We were established to encourage debate, not to monopolise it, and therefore the more bodies that engage in this, the better.

I congratulate the Chairman on his decision to take his committee around the regions. That is extremely helpful. Our experience has been that this is valuable from the point of view of the media. We found that the local press and radio were very good at covering our meetings and tended to have great penetration in their areas.

We go into the new year in the hope that we can involve people in the debate. We will be extremely glad to co-operate with the committee and interact with it in any way it believes can be helpful to the work it does.

Chairman

I am very impressed by the work of the forum and the prodigious amount of research and reports it has presented. It is certainly a great source of information and goes a long way towards closing the democratic deficit.

The staff of the committee can consult with the forum staff to ensure there is no clash in the dates for public meetings. It would not be a good use of resources were such meetings to clash.

We have already discussed privately what we can do to try to interest the press more in the issues being debated. Some important issues are on the agenda, not least of which are enlargement, the Irish Presidency and the opportunity to set the agenda for that, the work of the convention, the intergovernmental conference and the subsequent referendum. European affairs will be very much on the agenda for the next few years.

Obviously, many important European issues are on the agenda for the next two years. Will the forum be in existence for all that time? Has there been any indication as to the timeframe for the life of the forum?

Senator M. Hayes

There is always a risk of appearing to make a personal bid for immortality, something I would want to deny. What we are contemplating at the moment is that the forum should mark the Convention on the Future of Europe and continue in parallel with it.

The cut-off point which people have in mind is the summer. Having done that, there will be a period after that. One of the points raised this morning was the importance of a period of reflection on the report of the convention. For that debate to take place and for people to be able to feed into it, something like the forum would be required. Furthermore, I had always thought that in my own final report I would suggest that there might be a continuing need for something like the forum, although not as structured or as big, to allow people to keep in touch with European themes. If there is one thing we should all have learned from the two Nice referendums, it is the foolishness of projecting highly technical issues onto the public without having created a context for them. I see a continuing need for something which might take the form of the forum.

Chairman

Are there any subjects which are regarded as taboo or that we have danced around? I am thinking of the question of defence and security in Europe. I do not think we have had a debate on that issue and much shadowboxing is done with regard to it. Has the forum any intention, in the context of the convention, of revisiting that issue?

Senator M. Hayes

Yes, we will. There are working groups on external action and defence and those matters will be addressed at the meeting on 6 March next by Commissioner Patten or Mr. Javier Solana or someone like that.

Deputy Haughey

I welcome the members of the forum on Europe. This is going to be a useful exchange of views. As the Chairman has said, members of the convention attended a meeting of the joint committee recently. We had an excellent meeting and different views were exchanged. It turned out to be one of the committee's more important meetings since it was established earlier this year. The convention has done enormous work in the context of the Nice referendum. I suppose it is envisaged that it will go on to do even more important work in the context of any future referendum arising out of the intergovernmental conference. I listened with interest to the views of the members of the forum which seemed to coincide very much with the views of national parliamentarians in the Oireachtas, and that is a good thing.

There has been much talk about the scrutiny procedures. The procedures we have put in place are at the early stages and this committee will have to review those procedures to see how they are working in reality. However, I echo what the Chairman has said. More resources are required. Members of this committee feel a little swamped by the amount of work and documentation which is coming our way in relation to that procedure. While we have made enormous strides in dealing with the issue, which is one of great concern to the forum, I believe we need to tweak those procedures, or perhaps even do more than that, to ensure that they are absolutely effective.

The Chairman has said the convention is the only show in town. That is the major issue which must be dealt with by the forum and by our committee in the next few months. The public is not yet engaged with the work of the convention. I am sure a poll would find a very low level of public awareness. Does Senator Maurice Hayes have any information about the extent to which the public is engaged with the convention or regarding the level of public awareness of the convention's work? If we start at this point we can then speak about getting more media exposure for its work. Does Senator Maurice Hayes have information about the problem of engaging the public and establishing its level of awareness of the work of the convention?

Deputy Carey

I am not sure which hat I am wearing here. As a member of the committee, the forum and the convention I am probably talking to myself.

I welcome the opportunity to engage with the representatives of the forum. I spoke at the forum this morning on the issue of economic governance. The chairman of the forum has usefully outlined the role he sees the forum playing. It may be a cliché to say we need to continue to attempt to engage the public but it is possible to re-engage them. Some of us who may be buried in detail may be unable to see the fundamental issues to which the public need to be alerted. For that reason the committee's decision to go outside this House and the forum's decision to go around the country again are useful.

While we might be criticised in Ireland for our lack of engagement in certain areas, apart form Finland and Belgium I do not know of any other member state which has a mechanism in place which attempts to engage the public as we are trying to. I believe this is a valuable exercise. We will never have huge numbers attending meetings of the forum but we should be seen to be trying. If a constitutional treaty were coldly presented to the Irish people in 18 months or two years' time, they would reject it out of hand. At each working party the issues need to be flagged and aired in general terms. Although some people have been critical of them, the media, to their credit, have been trying to present some of the arguments. In view of the licence fee increase which was granted yesterday, I notice the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources seems to have got the agreement of RTE and the broadcasters to do additional coverage of the work of parliament. One of the useful aspects of the parliament's work which could be covered is the proceedings of this committee and of the convention.

I also endorse something that came out of one of the working parties and which has been spoken of at the forum by Proinsias De Rossa. This is the need for European weeks. There is nothing like a hands-on approach to the debate of the day to make the issues of Europe relevant. Perhaps we might take the lead in doing that.

We have made a useful start in engagement but we need to crank it up. I do not pretend to know all the answers to these questions but I believe that what we are doing is more than a useful start. I compliment the chairman of the forum on the work he and his colleagues are doing.

Senator M. Hayes

The issues raised are interrelated. Deputy Haughey said we reflect the views of the national parliament. The other strength of the forum is the observer pillar, which brings in civil society. Today, we had a meeting which gave speaking precedence to the pillar and that was important. In the report, which I have circulated, we dealt more fully with the matter of resources. We heard very strong evidence from the British House of Lords and the Danish Parliament with regard to the resources they were putting in. We regarded them as very convincing and useful models.

On the question about information, the short answer is "No". In the previous operation we ran tracking polls from time to time to check shifts in public opinion or, alternatively, "piggybacked" on other surveys. Perhaps this is a matter at which our secretariat should look again. While it is important, we should avoid duplication of effort on such surveys.

I will move on to the point raised by Deputy Carey. One of our initiatives is to speak to audiences of young people in transition year as well as through education centres. In his address to the forum on a European week Mr. De Rossa, MEP, emphasised that there was no need for Ireland to wait for all of Europe to act in this regard, that Irish parliamentary organisations could make their own arrangements for such an initiative early in the year if they so wished.

Senator Ormonde

Having participated in the forum during the past year I wish to compliment its chairman, Senator Maurice Hayes, and secretariat on their work in reaching out to the public, thereby increasing awareness of European issues. The value of that work became very evident during the Nice treaty referendum campaign. However, the initiative has waned somewhat and I agree with Deputy Haughey's comments on the need to keep up the pressure. I welcome the opportunity this meeting provides for interaction between the joint committee and the forum as it is most important that we reach out to the public on an ongoing basis on European affairs.

Senator Maurice Hayes has dealt with the vital question of resources. Members of the forum receive a vast amount of documentation, some of which is of a highly technical nature. It is a rather daunting prospect to have to delve into it fully in order to get to the root of the various issues involved and inform oneself adequately. We need more resources to enable us to carry out that responsibility properly, including additional personnel to assist us in finding the answers to our questions. I strongly support Senator Maurice Hayes's comments in that regard.

The concept of a European week is an excellent one, with particular reference to the possibility of national parliaments co-ordinating their schedules for debating relevant legislation. Has this moved any further than the conceptual stage? Perhaps Senator Maurice Hayes will comment further on this. It would provide a golden opportunity to make a real impact on public awareness and perhaps need not be confined to just once a year.

Senator Dardis

I welcome Senator Maurice Hayes and other colleagues from the forum, wearing my joint committee hat on this occasion as I am also a member of the forum's steering committee. There is a very real issue with regard to connecting with the people. It is too easy to blame the media for any shortcomings in that regard. In order to obtain coverage one must have something of substance and interest to present to the media. In fairness, there has been an improvement, even since the Nice treaty referendum. For instance, Mr. Prodi's remarks received considerable media coverage, as was appropriate, including editorial comment.

The specific question of making a connection with the general public remains a very big issue. The forum's initiative in making contact with transition year students and so on is very welcome. More contact at that level is essential. My experience would suggest that, even when the forum visits centres around the country, the attendance consists predominantly of europhiles or europhobes. Were it not for the attendance and engagement of local media personnel, there would be a distinct lack of wider public engagement. I recognise the excellent job the forum's press people have done in that regard.

Reporting on the outcome of European Council meetings is another important issue. There will be a report to the Dáil following the Copenhagen summit and I am aware of the briefing which the Institute for European Affairs has arranged for next Tuesday, under Chatham House rules, on the outcome of the meeting. While I am also aware that in advance of some General Affairs and External Relations Council meetings the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has briefed the joint committee on his ideas, perhaps what we need is a procedure for reporting to the committee, not necessarily by the Minister but possibly by his departmental officials, on the outcome of Council meetings, as well as a regular procedure for direct consultation between the committee and the Minister before all such meetings. That would be a useful role for the committee to fulfil.

From my involvement with the joint committee and the forum I do not perceive any undue overlap or duplication of effort between the two bodies, though that may occur occasionally. Obviously, the Convention on the Future of Europe is a major priority on all our agendas. Both the joint committee and the forum can work on a collaborative basis while maintaining their respective independence. There are major issues coming down the line in relation to the convention. At last week's meeting of the forum the issue of federalism arose. That is an aspect which requires comprehensive consideration, not least in terms of clarifying the different interpretations as to the meaning of federalism, on which there is a considerable degree of confusion.

My primary message is that the outreach should be as comprehensive as possible and that the issue of resources, to which Senator Ormonde and others have referred, should be addressed. While appreciating current difficulties with regard to the allocation of resources, it is vital that we have the resources to enable us to give proper consideration to the many and varied issues which come before us. Earlier this afternoon we discussed storage conditions for bull semen, an issue on which even the most enthusiastic journalist from the Irish Farmers' Journal might find it somewhat difficult to generate a lively interest. However, there are many issues on which the media could usefully focus.

Chairman

As there is a vote in the Dáil, we will have to adjourn for 15 minutes. Senator Maurice Hayes and Mr. Haugh will have an opportunity to respond when the meeting resumes.

Sitting suspended at 3.35 p.m. and resumed at 3.50 p.m.

Chairman

Unfortunately, we are running into time problems. Deputy Carey must chair the Dáil at 4 p.m. while the chairman of the forum must catch a train. Therefore, we must aim to conclude at approximately 4.15 p.m.

Mr. Dominic Haugh

I want to make a couple of comments because I am coming at the issue from a different perspective to much of the discussion which is taking place. We view the convention as part of a process which has been under way for a considerable period. This includes the liberalisation and privatisation of State and semi-State services, the undermining of workers' rights, working conditions and wages and the building of a European-wide power block, both economically and militarily. An indication of this was given at the forum this morning when it was pointed out that there was a proposal at the working group on the convention that economic restrictions would be placed on countries in terms of spending, excluding spending on defence. This would mean countries could spend all the money they wanted on armaments but not on hospitals or schools.

The policies being pursued by the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and national parliaments will inevitably have an effect on the outcome of the convention and how far the process will go. Much has been said about engaging the citizens of Europe in the process. The reaction to this has been interesting, particularly around Europe where there is significant opposition to the policies and process under way. This is not necessarily a conscious opposition in terms of relating the process to the work of the convention but in terms of relating it to what is happening in people's lives, as can be seen this week in Portugal and recently in Greece, Germany, France and Italy, including problems among fire-fighters, teachers and local authority workers in Britain, and what will happen on the streets in a couple of weeks in Florence, Genoa and Copenhagen. To a degree this opposition is taking place outside the gates of Leinster House today where the people of Monaghan are protesting. While a process is under way, this will be combated in an attempt to put a stop to it. This will have a significant influence on what we will be voting on in a couple of years' time.

Mr. Noel Mulcahy

As it is 21 years since I attended a secondary legislation committee meeting, it is a great pleasure to be here. I wish the joint committee well.

When the Minister, Deputy Brennan, spoke about setting up the review group, one of the questions I asked him was what would the group have done that would have avoided us getting into the position we got into over the first Nice treaty. Will there be fundamental changes through the convention process to what was agreed at Nice? Will the group dive into that and does it see itself being able to handle it considering that we will have to go back to the people to approve whatever treaty is brought forward? How best to get the attention of the people was a matter raised earlier; those who oppose any treaty will ensure that the people will take notice of them. We will then be back to a fundamental debate. I hope, since the Oireachtas issue came up last year in the forum discussions, the new arrangements will ensure that Ireland is ready when it goes back to the people, which it must do unlike other countries.

Chairman

The statutory powers of the committee - we took Committee Stage of the Bill in this committee - and the terms of reference from the Oireachtas, which is a sort of hybrid power base, gives the committee a vehicle to address the issues raised by Mr. Mulcahy. We have the energy and the interest to do so and people have turned up at meetings in large numbers. I do not know whether we have the juice to make that vehicle run but it would not take much more to do so.

One of the problems we have is that our existing staff have duties with other committees and the convention. We need to get that question right. We have hit the boards running and the committee has been very active in getting that Bill through Committee Stage; it was a major task. We have the interest and the power base but that is no use without resources. I am not talking about the Taj Mahal. The committee does not want huge resources or a big bureaucracy. That is where the question will be answered and we are still working on that.

Mr. Mulcahy

I wish you well, Chairman.

Chairman

That is the area we must deliver on.

Senator Quinn

I have been watching the forum for the past year and have found it very interesting. I recognise that Senator Maurice Hayes put a great deal of work into it. I have listened today to people talking about the need for good news - the marketing challenge. I was very excited by Senator Maurice Hayes when I thought I heard him mention - I was wrong - making a personal bid for immorality. I thought that was the mark of a real marketing man and that we would get a great deal of attention on that; however, it turned out he was talking about immortality instead.

Senator M. Hayes

That would be asking too much.

Senator Quinn

I fear the rejection of another referendum if we do not pursue this issue as actively as Senator Maurice Hayes and the forum have in the past year. We need good news. The committee got the attention of the newspapers when the Competition Authority came before it. We got front page coverage the following day with regard to the price of cars and how that would be affected by Europe.

The news that Irish people normally hear is bad news, such as that Irish fishermen are not allowed to fish in our waters while foreigners are. People naturally think that this is outrageous as they do with regard to tax harmonization, which will take away our right to lower our taxes. On the other hand, one of my colleagues who is going away on a birthday trip to Barcelona told me that he is able to fly for €65 each way. He gave full thanks to the former Minister, Mr. Jim Mitchell, and to Mr. Peter Sutherland, and he gave credit to Europe for bringing down fares.

There is good news out there which we can proclaim. It is necessary that the forum recognises what its challenge is - to bring good news and to remind the public of the intention of Europe, which is subsidiarity and bringing decisions closer to the people. It makes more sense, on occasion, to put decisions on top and that is so with regard to competition and Peter Sutherland's aggressive move that enabled Europe to have lower air fares. That is good news and we should not just hear bad news such as that Irish fishermen are not allowed to fish. I encourage the forum to continue.

Ms Mary Bannotti MEP

This morning, Senator Maurice Hayes, who is a masterly chairman and ringmaster of the forum, reminded us that he had written to the Taoiseach about resources for this committee because it needs them. Another point that members of this committee must keep in mind is that there are a great many NGOs following the work of the forum. One of this morning's speakers asked for time to look at what is proposed so that it can be picked at and studied before it reaches the point of readiness for a referendum. I agree with Senator Mulcahy that it will be difficult because Ireland has a political culture that was considerably tweaked during the second Nice treaty referendum. Many of the aristocrats in charge of the convention - I refer specifically to my ex-colleague Mr. Giscard d'Estaing - have not had to go on to the main streets to argue their case with anybody, let alone do what we must do when faced with a feisty political campaign.

This is important for those who believe that this is the way this issue will go. We hope to support that but not necessarily in the way it now stands. There is considerable concern about a number of points being made about the convention. We need to have a good discussion but should not leave this to the nay-sayers and those who promise that it will give people everything but warts on their palms, which was the case with most referenda here. I hope, notwithstanding the sterling work this committee will do, that we will also have a chance to discuss this issue publicly within other fora.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome Senator Maurice Hayes and the forum to the committee. The Irish public is probably the best informed of all EU member states with regard to EU institutions and developments in the European Union as a result of the two recent referenda. We are way ahead of other EU member states in terms of consultation. The media and the forum can only do so much to inform the public about what is going in the convention and Europe generally. We are all familiar with the criticism that public representatives get for not engaging with the public other than at election and referendum time. However, there is an opportunity in the new year for an EU wide circulation of a fact sheet or information guide about what is going on in the convention, who the players are, the roles of the national governments and what it is hoped to achieve. It could be something of the nature of a litir um thog chán which could be circulated to every household in the European Union in March or April to let people know that this is a consultative process, and that there are concerns that people are brought along.

The forum cannot do all the work and the media cannot be expected to do it all either. We must do it ourselves and the chairman of the forum should take on board my suggestion for the distribution of a fact sheet. I would like to hear his view on that. The convention should be about consolidation of powers in the context of the accession of new member states. Increased competencies are not the best option at this time when we should be looking at ways to simplify legislation and institutions.

Chairman

I call Ms Niamh Bhreathnach to speak next and Senator Maurice Hayes may then conclude. There could be some consultation between both secretariats to help advance the idea of a European week. The consultation should involve those who have concerns about the European project, as well as those who can see its positive sides. I will allow Senator Maurice Hayes to speak after I have allowed Ms Bhreathnach to respond.

Ms Niamh Bhreathnach

I wish to take the opportunity to enter the debate at this forum, having been quite vocal in Dublin Castle this morning. We are rolling out civil society, but we are not yet quite there. As Deputy Andrews said, however, we are probably further ahead than other European countries as a result of involving ourselves in referenda.

The Deputy also mentioned the committee's resources. When one serves in Government, one notices that the level of expertise and research made available to Members of the Oireachtas is uneven. Many young graduates who have studied under Philip Lane in TCD and Bridget Laffan in UCD leave to work in Europe and perhaps a similar system should be established in this House. Well-informed young people should be allowed to benefit from work experience in this Parliament, rather than having to go to Brussels or Strasbourg.

I remember, from my time as a teacher in the inner city, that we would support the yellow weeks - such as those involving the purchase of daffodils and the chickens - and the concept of a European week is similarly important. I was never too sure how much my pupils learned about yellow, but they learned about daffodils and chickens.

I later encountered a panel of housewives run by Senator Quinn. They would tell him, in a non-aggressive manner, what they did not like about his shop. It was an interesting exercise and a similar forum could assist the important European week. It is important, as the Chairman said, to listen to both sides in a conversational, rather than a confrontational, atmosphere. I thank the committee for allowing me to contribute.

Senator M. Hayes

I thank the Chairman and his colleagues for their welcome. I look forward to co-operating with the committee in relation to its work programme and that of the National Forum on Europe. As there is a duplication in certain areas, we need to be focused.

In response to Deputy Andrewss query, I can inform the committee that before each meeting the forum produces an objective factsheet about the activities of its working groups. I will ensure that the committee receives copies of such documents and it may be a good idea to publish them all together.

Yesterday, I launched a book which has been prepared for the Equality Authority by Brian Harvey. It is one of the best guides to equality in Europe I have seen. It describes the various elements of the European structure and outlines how decisions are made and I commend it to the committee. I take the point about the need for better information and the forum will do what it can about it. I thank the committee for its time.

Chairman

I thank Senator Maurice Hayes for attending this meeting of the committee and I hope we will have the opportunity to have more exchanges like this. It would be useful if the forum could come before the committee at a location outside Dublin at some stage with a view to engaging the interest of the public. This has been a worthwhile meeting and I thank Members for their contributions.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.15 p.m. and adjourned at 4.20 p.m.