The role of this committee has changed significantly during the current Parliament - since the election of 2002 - in two ways. First, the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 was passed which requires the Government to send to this committee in advance all proposals for regulations and directives within four weeks of their being received by a Government Department. There is therefore a sub-committee of this committee which meets every two weeks and in the last year examined something like 400 draft regulations or draft directives. That sub-committee decides whether to recommend further scrutiny. In about 30% of cases, we refer the draft for further scrutiny by standing committees such as the committees responsible for transport, justice or otherwise. In 70% of cases, we make no such recommendation but simply note the proposal.
This is an assisting process whereby a committee of the Oireachtas considers all draft regulations and draft directives in advance and provides an opportunity for comment on them. In each Department, a co-ordinator has been appointed to ensure that the requirements of the legislation are met. There has been some sluggishness or difficulty in regard to some Departments, though not too much, and there is also a difficulty with the resources of the committee which we need to address. However, under the Act, we are required to report to both the Dáil and Seanad after the end of 2003 on how the scrutiny legislation has worked. We are in the process of reporting to both Houses on how this new system has worked.
Second, as a result of the changes, the Minister for Foreign Affairs now comes before this committee each month before he goes to the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The committee considers the agenda with him and members ask questions and raise issues as they wish and get responses.
This committee is a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad but Irish members of the European Parliament also have the right of attendance and audience. They can participate but not vote, though the committee does not normally vote in any event. While there were some votes when legislation was passing through the committee, even then we did not break down on a party basis. The committee generally does its business by agreement and through consensus, something which has emerged rather than being a requirement of legislation. When the committee meets, MEPs often attend and are free to do so, particularly on Mondays or Fridays and sometimes midweek when they are not in Brussels.
The committee decided to hold four meetings of the committee annually outside Dublin, before which a subject would be decided for discussion. Before those meetings, which were held in the same manner as meetings here, with witnesses being questioned and an audience, a number of schools would attend the committee and we would discuss with them the European Union and how the committee deliberates.
During the Convention process, we met with Government and parliamentary representatives before and after their attendance at plenary sessions. We discussed with them the issues being raised and our views on them. In the final analysis, we drew up what was known as a 'Chairman's draft' with regard to the Convention report, and did it in that way so that the committee and parties represented on the committee were not bound in any way. It was not finalised but was simply a draft which gave some steer to our members on the Convention as to the concerns of members, through the eyes of the Chairman. It was done in that way so that the draft would not be formalised.
The committee also takes initiatives and I will give two examples of that. We receive incoming Commissioners and our own Ministers; we do not confine ourselves to the Minister for Foreign Affairs but have recently met with the Minister for Finance in regard to the Stability and Growth Pact and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in regard to immigration issues.
We decided that the Irish EU Presidency could, with some credibility, try to drive Third World issues up the agenda during our Presidency, issues such as the HIV crisis in the developing world, hunger and trade. Having looked at Sweden's contribution in this area in terms of GNP, I feel it could do the same with even greater credibility. Ireland has a great missionary tradition, as does Sweden, and an NGO tradition.
The committee got the secretary general of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to chair a group for the committee which consisted of the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. David Andrews, the former Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Noel Dorr, and the former adviser to President Mary Robinson, Ms Bride Rosney. We asked them, without reinventing the wheel or trying to change everything overnight, to find what practical matters Ireland could put on the agenda during its Presidency. They came up with a report which we presented to the Government. It has put this issue on the agenda and is trying to push it forward. It was our committee that prompted it to do that, as the Minister with responsibility for European affairs was kind enough to acknowledge last week.
From my experience of our chairmanship of COSAC, which you will know from your participation has the right to make recommendations for the consideration of the institutions of the union, COSAC spends far too much time examining our own regulations. I want to bring an end to that during our time. We asked Professor Patricia Barker, professor of business studies at Dublin City University, to look at an institution that does not often get examined, namely, the Court of Auditors - when we talk about institutions we tend to look at the political institutions - and to make recommendations to stimulate debate on the reform of the Court of Auditors. Professor Barker had a group of people - accountants and economists - working with her. She reported to the committee and we intend to table that report for discussion at the upcoming COSAC meeting in the hope that COSAC might use that power and start moving the issue forward. We have the right of initiative in that regard.
Our power comes from two sources. One is the legislation I mentioned and the other is resolution of both the Dáil and Seanad which gives us fairly wide powers in terms of examining issues generally. It all sounds very good, it works fairly well and we work very hard but nobody knows that because we do not get a great degree of media coverage, but we get some. We have a resource problem and that is something we are trying to address. Do any of my colleagues want to add to that?