I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, and his colleagues to this meeting of our sub-committee. As the Minister of State is aware, we have asked him here to discuss the transposition of EU law, which is very relevant to the first module of our work programme and has been mentioned regularly by every member of the sub-committee. We have invited the Minister of State to give his views on how it is operating at the moment and how it could operate in the future. On behalf of members I thank the Minister of State for attending. In this discussion we will give every speaker 15 minutes and then give ten minutes to every group to allow them to put questions to the Minister of State.
Transposition of EU Law: Discussion.
I will try to get through my formal statement because the criss-cross of discussion would probably be the best way to proceed.
Although the transposition of European laws into national legislation looks on the surface to be rather prosaic, it is in reality a key issue. One of the extraordinary things about it is its importance with regard to national parliaments. The Government is looking forward to receiving the report of the sub-committee in advance of the December European Council and I have no doubt the report will help foster a greater public interest in Europe and, please God, a more informed public debate. It will also help us to trace the way forward.
The stakes for Ireland could not be higher. I do not think this is generally realised. For the first time since 1973 there is a very real possibility that Ireland will find itself adrift from the European mainstream. The prospect of isolation and marginalisation for Ireland is very real and it is one we need to banish quickly. Since the referendum in June the process of treaty ratification has continued with vigour in the other member states. Next month the Swedish Parliament will complete its ratification process. It is not anticipating any difficulties. The Polish ratification has been completed in its parliamentary phase and is awaiting the signature of the President, who has said, privately and publicly, that he has already signed the treaty on one occasion, and I assume he will sign it again.
Later this month the Czech court will issue its findings on the country's ratification process and it is expected that the two Houses of the Czech Parliament will move on with their job. By January it is likely that ratification will be completed in the other 26 member states. At that time, the road we choose to travel could well have implications for generations to come. That is not hyperbole or exaggeration. This is a very important moment, indeed a defining moment for Ireland. We have important decisions to make in the months ahead. We should make sure we get it right. I have told colleagues in Europe who are anxious that we move forward that it is more important that we get it right than that we do the job quickly.
The best place for Ireland is at the heart of the European Union. We must spare no effort in our search for a solution on the Lisbon treaty that addresses the valid concerns of the Irish people and reconciles our requirements with those of our European partners. The will of the people must be respected and that, obviously, must be the starting point. This is best done by acknowledging the concerns that led the people to vote "No" in June. We must then discuss the arrangements with our EU partners under which the concerns can be accommodated. This will not be easy to accomplish but I believe it can and must be done. That is what we are attempting in the period ahead.
I have been asked to focus my remarks on the application of Community law and I speak in my capacity as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs and as chairman of the committee which oversees the transposition of European law into Irish law. I will make some general points about EU level law making and then talk about national scrutiny and transposition arrangements. I am also happy to discuss broader Lisbon issues with the sub-committee as they arise.
Application of EU law is a fundamental and key issue. The European Union is built on law. Its foundation is law. It pursues many of its policies through negotiations at EU level which result in compromises about agreed legal measures. Ireland, like every other member state, plays a full role in the law-making process. This is something which, strangely, has bypassed public debate. One sometimes gets the impression from public debate that the laws are passed over to us. That is not the case. We are full and active members of the law-making process. More important, we enjoy an influence over the evolution of EU law that is out of proportion to our size and population. Ms Catherine Day, Secretary General of the EU Commission, addressed the sub-committee this morning. An indication of how disproportionate our role is in the European Union is the number of key personnel in EU institutions who are Irish.
We also have a strong interest in the application of European law. The process of agreeing law at EU level and applying it at national level is central to the operations, membership and success of the Union. At EU level, the body of legislation is significant. The Commission estimates that there are approximately 9,000 legal measures. Nearly 2,000 of these are directives, which require transposition into national and regional legislation. Transposition measures themselves can be complex, sometimes requiring a series of individual measures across a range of state agencies.
Since law making is the engine of the Union and the Internal Market, improved communications by the European Union about the processes, and the compromises and bargaining that go into law making, are essential. Because law making is both essential and complex it is a real target for propaganda and myth making by opponents of the European Union, which have reached outrageous proportions in this country. The recent referendum campaign was a classic case in point. We are all familiar with the charges of faceless bureaucrats who rule by diktat from Brussels. We have witnessed the demonisation of the European Court of Justice. The debate framed in these terms distorts reality, fundamentally misrepresents the truth, deliberately misleads the public and quickly becomes a win/lose debate where too much or too little EU is always the focus. The reality is very different from that cartoon image.
At the EU level, the truth is completely contrary to the eurosceptic analysis. In general, the law-making process involves three institutions, namely, the Commission, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Draft measures are initiated by the Commission. Contrary to the mythology, the Commission has a small and open bureaucracy. The Commission prides itself on being accessible to the public and to interest groups. Its role as initiator is vital in ensuring that legal proposals are designed to serve the interests of the many rather than the few. It is the initiator and this is the role it has held since day one of the European project. Its predecessor also held this role. The Commission is not the law maker of the Union. It is the initiator. It has only very limited law-making powers which are delegated by the Council of Ministers.
When speaking of the important role of the Commission, I want to pay particular tribute to Ms Catherine Day who addressed the sub-committee this morning. In her capacity as Secretary General of the European Commission she has spear-headed a number of initiatives to focus the Commission's work in the area of Community law, including, most recently, A Europe of Results — Applying Community Law. The objective of this pilot initiative is to find positive solutions to complaints from citizens and businesses about Community law and about the processes. There have been only five secretaries general in the EU Commission since the foundation of the Union. Two, Ms Day and her immediate predecessor Mr. O'Sullivan, have been Irish. That shows the level of regard for this country.
EU laws are agreed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Over the years, the Council's role in the law-making process, which I will describe in more detail in a moment, is being matched increasingly by that of the European Parliament, in a process of democratisation which I welcome and recognise. Both of these law-making institutions, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, have one thing that many of the critics of Europe do not have. They have the power and benefit of democratic mandates. These are democratically-elected governments and a democratically-elected Parliament that make the laws. The people who make the laws are not some faceless bureaucratic elite. They are the members of democratically-elected governments and the democratically-elected Members of the European Parliament.
It is important to emphasise the role of the Council where Ireland is consistently represented by Ministers answerable to the Dáil acting on behalf of the Government. Their duty is to secure an outcome that best suits Ireland's national interest. Ireland's national interest in the law-making process is further protected by the Irish permanent representation which is frequently ignored in debate here. The permanent representative is a permanent voice for the Irish Government at the negotiating table in Brussels. The permanent representative attends meetings on a daily basis at which agreements are hammered out and consensus is consistently sought. I should say that probably the permanent representation which is best regarded in Brussels over all the years has been the Irish permanent representative. For a very small office, the amount work it has done is extraordinary. I can speak with authority in this regard because I became a member of the post-negotiation team here as a civil servant in 1973, and our permanent representative has risen to the challenge in all of the years since. It is simply false for people to say we do not have a place daily and hourly at the table.
It is also important to recall that EU law, before ever reaching the stage of requiring implementation into domestic law, will have gone through an elaborate political process involving the different EU institutions, in particular, the governments of the member states, which carry with them their respective democratic mandates. In Ireland, our democratic procedures include our EU scrutiny measures. The other member states have their own arrangements to ensure accountability. This results in a decision-making process which contains many checks and balances to ensure that the interests of the member states are properly reflected in the outcome.
Because the process is necessarily complicated — to ensure that the interests of all 27 member states are protected — the overall impressions that EU law is technical, complex and reserved for the experts have been allowed to grow. This is something of a fault in the way the European Union represents itself. It needs to explain that the process of law making in Europe is one of the most democratic and open anywhere in the world. It is significantly more open to input from people outside the legislative process than most of the individual member states. The negative perceptions have been ruthlessly fuelled by opponents in the Union. That in turn has fed into concerns about a democratic deficit.
One of the key aims of the Lisbon treaty was to ensure that a democratic deficit does not grow within the Union. It is vital for national legislators to be fully involved in the scrutiny and oversight of the EU policy process. That is one of the key elements in the treaty. It is a process that needs some further exploration in terms of public debate. This must mean that national parliaments become involved as soon as a proposal is mooted, if European legislation is not to be something that catches us by surprise from time to time.
It is right that national parliaments should be involved at the very heart of the process from day one. Early involvement by national parliaments is provided for in the Lisbon treaty and it would bring the process of law making ever closer to the citizens of the Union. Given the volume of European Union measures this must be challenging but priority areas could be selected. I see no reason the Oireachtas committee cannot aim to track an issue from the early stages, for example, in the Commission's annual work programme, to monitor developments and engage in debate with the Ministers until the measures are agreed in Brussels. It would be a different way of doing business but from the point of view of every Member of the Dáil and Seanad, it would be a much more satisfactory way of doing business.
If I may interject, the Minister of State has five more minutes before I hand over to my colleagues.
One of the great innovations of the treaty was a simplification of the EU legislative process to make it far more understandable. It dramatically enhances the role of national parliaments. If brought into operation, the treaty would give significant new powers to the Houses of the Oireachtas in the matter of EU business. I hope its measures in this area can be implemented because they can really bolster public participation in policy-making.
Over the years, there have been significant improvements in the transparency and the accountability with regard to EU affairs. Following criticisms levelled during the EU debate on the Nice treaty, there were major changes. Scrutiny guidelines setting out the procedures to be followed by Departments have recently been revised. There is group co-operation between the Oireachtas and the Executive on EU matters and this ensures greater discussion, co-ordination and consultation.
While much has been achieved, there is still more to do. The Government is open to suggestions for further improvements in this area. As a small country, Ireland must be nimble to be able to deal with fast-moving regulations from Brussels and with negotiations in Brussels and elsewhere. It is vital that our new oversight arrangements are able to deal with matters in a timely way.
Member states of the European Union have primary responsibility for the application of law in their own jurisdictions. The primary legislation in Ireland for transposition is the European Communities Acts 1972 to 2007. Section 2 of the 1972 Act provides that the treaties governing the European Communities and existing and future Acts adopted by the institutions of the Union shall be binding on the State and be part of domestic law. Section 3 of the Act provides that a Minister may make regulations enabling law to be transposed.
In addition, the State has always been open to introducing primary legislation in this area. The advantage of primary legislation is that there would be significant debate on the proposal but the disadvantage is that it involves a slow and a relatively unwieldy process. The interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European affairs, ICCEUA, which I chair, has a monitoring and oversight role regarding the timely transposition of EU legislation into Irish law. The committee has developed a set of agreed guidelines for the transposition of EU measures and these guidelines are publicly available and are based on the EU Commission's recommendations for best practice.
As we move ahead in Europe, it is very clear that the Oireachtas will play a key role in the future. I hope it will play an increasingly front line role. The work of this committee testifies to the value of the Oireachtas as a place of debate and deliberation on European affairs. I look forward to working with the committee to find the right way forward for Ireland and for Europe in the challenging circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
I thank the Minister of State for his contribution.
I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his contribution. Looking back over the Lisbon debate, would the Minister of State consider the debate probably focused too much on the technical issues of the treaty rather than on the general idea of the vision for the future of Europe and Ireland's role, particularly in light of the findings that 70% of the Irish people still believe our participation in the European project is a valuable one? Perhaps we just got the focus wrong.
With regard to the transposition of EU directives into Irish law, I note that 98% of the EU directives are currently transposed into Irish law and this places us 17th out of 27 member states. What are the ten states that come after us? What percentage of EU legislation do they transpose into law? Are we regarded as a success story due to the speed at which we transpose the directives into Irish law? There is a feeling that many of the EU directives are transposed too perfectly without reflecting the Irish situation. Examples include directives on food safety and agriculture. Irish farmers will now have their names published in the newspaper in relation to the farm payments they get from the EU. What flexibility exists for us to transpose the spirit and the principle of the directive, without having to get caught up in the detail?
I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's comments on making the European Union less technical. It is technical for a reason, but at the same time it is a relatively simple system. I was delighted to listen to Ms Catherine Day earlier, as she did not use much of this "eurospeak" that we are so used to hearing from eurocrats. Half the time one would want an interpreter to know what they are saying. This is very off-putting for ordinary citizens, not to mind members of parliament. I would like some comments on some of the practical issues of the transposition of the EU directives, especially some of the ones that have caused a great deal of difficulty for us.
We have spent a great deal of time in recent days interviewing different people about the European scrutiny committees, and we looked at the system of European scrutiny reserve as opposed to the mandate system. Which system does the Minister of State feel would serve us better? Can he explain the use of the statutory instrument? Why do we not use primary legislation instead? What are the practical reasons for the use of the statutory instrument? What is the percentage breakdown between using the primary legislation or the statutory instrument as a mechanism?
I note the Minister of State's comments about the permanent representative, and I am delighted to hear that we are highly regarded at European level. How important is the role of an Irish Commissioner at the Commission? Is it something we should value enough to retain? Listening to Ms Day, the option of a Commissioner is certainly not off the table. She made the point that if every country had an EU Commissioner, there would be plenty of work for them all to do. Maybe there is a value to looking at that, which might be an important concession to sell the Lisbon treaty to the Irish people.
On the issue of eurospeak, as Deputy Flynn knows from our past contact, I detest special language and jargon. When I went into the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, in which there are superb public servants but a lot of jargon, I issued a writ, a fatwa against jargon. The following day an e-mail was circulated about OMWA, and I asked one of the senior people what in the name of God was OMWA. It was: “One man’s war against acronyms”.
As there are 27 member states, we will inevitably get jargon, but the EU must examine it. The EU has to learn to speak to its citizens' hearts, and not in language that passes over their heads. That is the biggest single challenge for Europe at the moment. It is losing contact because every time it uses jargon, it loses contact with its audience. If one's audience does not believe one respects it and that one is prepared to talk in a language common to both parties, one will lose it and it will disrespect and distrust one.
On the focus on the referendum debate, the reality was that there was a blizzard of mendacious assertions, most of which had nothing to do with the Lisbon treaty. It was very important to address these. If I am being asked whether the referendum debate was a mistake or whether the way the "Yes" side conducted it was a mistake, I would have to say it was. Any political activity one loses has not been well done; that is the reality. We need to put our hands up and say this.
Members are correct that we did not speak enough to the people about what the European Union is about. There is a photograph on the wall of my room of a little boy walking out of the Warsaw ghetto 65 years ago. Within a matter of days he and all of the people in the photograph were dead. Europe might now have many headaches but we have peace. The prize of peace which has come to the citizens of the entire continent because of the activities of the European Union is one that is far too great for it to be discounted. I agree there needs to be different language and a different debate.
On the issue of transposition and the figure of 98% of EU directives transposed into Irish law, Deputy Flynn asked which were the other countries behind us on the list. We are on the 1% target which all countries must reach. The reason we are 17th is we are being modest. There is a big group on the same figure. There has been a remarkable improvement with regard to transposition. In 1997 we were at a figure of 5.4%; in 1998, 5.8% but now we are down to 1.2%. We are at the level at which we need to be. I give people a hard time because we should transpose the directives.
The Deputy asked a second question related to this issue and the way EU legislation is applied in Ireland. A number of years ago under the strategic management initiative a report was prepared on the imposition of EU regulations in Ireland with specific reference to the fishing and agriculture industries. I remember asking Members of the Houses to fill in the forms but they could not because they were so complex. We brought over the director general from the relevant section of the Commission and his view was that there was perhaps an excessive degree of detail in Ireland. There is a propensity within our public administration system, as the Deputy knows because she has listened to me ranting about this for a whole year, for us to be very cut and dried. It comes from the process of ministerial responsibility, where everybody wants to cover their Minister. More latitude is allowed in other countries.
I have dealt with eurospeak. On scrutiny committees and the scrutiny arrangements that have been worked through in the Dáil, every scrutiny committee tends to be sui generis with regard to the individual parliament concerned. The process we have worked has been very good. In 1973, when we began to put together our process in the Dáil, it was regarded very much as a model but it has now slipped behind. Excellent suggestions were made recently by Deputy Perry and his committee. If we were to get involved under the Lisbon treaty arrangements, it would be so much the better.
A question was asked about statutory instruments. It is obviously impossible to have primary legislation for all of the body of EU law. In objective terms, primary legislation is preferable to statutory instruments because it forces a debate. Frequently, however, due to the sheer volume of law, statutory instruments are preferable. While statutory instruments may be better to effect the change, with the new processes we are discussing which would give more power to the Dáil and Seanad than Bunreacht na hÉireann, we would get the balance right.
On the issue of the commissioner, it is no secret that I have always argued in the Convention on the Future of Europe that a role could be found for a bigger Commission. At the same time, I can understand the logic of the argument for a smaller Commission which was largely brought forward, particularly in the convention, by the larger countries. Is a commissioner available to us? The real irony is that we, the Irish people, were persuaded to vote for the Nice treaty. Those who put posters up all over the country asking the people to vote "No" to retain the commissioner were not telling them the truth. As we voted "No", we are stuck with the Nice treaty which allows for a smaller Commission from 2009. Had we voted "Yes", we would have one commissioner per member state until 2014.
There was a process in the Lisbon treaty which would allow the European Council to make a decision by unanimity on the size of the Commission. It is no secret, I always argued that the day some of the larger countries were going to be without a commissioner — and Malta, Ireland or Cyprus would have one — there would be a change of heart on that issue. Sadly, however, the question put to me by my colleagues in the small and medium-sized countries all the time is "Why were you talking about a commissioner per member state and then you went out and voted against it?" That is a reasonable question for them to ask. We know that unless the situation is changed and Lisbon is ratified, there will be a smaller Commission in 2009. I was told on RTE once "Oh, you are threatening the people", but that is not a threat, it is the legal position. We voted for Nice, which is the default position. It is one of the big challenges we face.
I believe firmly that one could craft a meaningful role for a larger Commission, particularly in terms of communicating with the citizens of the Union. Ms Catherine Day is not the only person who believes that. Sadly, however, we have voted against that. We voted to impose a smaller Commission on the rest of the member states, including the other small and medium member states who supported Ireland strongly on this issue in the Convention on the Future of Europe. It is one of the negative sides that people who argued strongly, both inside and outside politics, for a "No" vote have yet to explain to the Irish people why that is. The commissioner is psychologically important to a small or medium-sized state. Although it is not the Irish Commissioner, it is an Irish person at the table who swears an undertaking to the Union.
The Taoiseach gave a clear outline of some of the key issues on which we wish to have a dialogue. We are the only country in Europe that has voted for a smaller Commission from 2009. All the others voted for a larger Commission, including the countries that argued strongly and with great consistency for a smaller Commission. We find ourselves therefore in a dilemma that we have created.
I thank the Minister of State. As always, it is a pleasure listening to his views on Europe being passionately expounded. I have a couple of questions and would like, first, to deal with the fall-out of the Lisbon treaty referendum. Having watched and monitored the response, reaction and statements of Government Ministers over the last number of months, I am disappointed that we have not seen enough plain speaking from the Government, and particularly from the Cabinet, on the implications of the "No" vote for Ireland. I would like the Minister of State to talk a little bit about that, although I know he has done so to a certain extent in recent months. I am concerned that the people who engaged in a less than honest campaign on the "No" side in advance of the referendum, have in some ways been vindicated by a deafening silence from the Government on the ramifications for Ireland, Ireland's interests, and the wider European interests as a result of the "No" vote.
The situation in Georgia and the financial crisis, in particular, are clear examples of where a concerted, collective and rapid response from the EU was required and would have been better facilitated under the Lisbon procedures. I am disappointed that that was not articulated by our Government, however. As an Opposition Member who, along with many colleagues, campaigned vigorously and tirelessly for a "Yes" vote, I feel let down by the Government and the Cabinet. I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on that.
I have a major, long-standing concern about the level of understanding and knowledge of European affairs in this country. I made this point when the Minister of State was before the Joint Committee on European Affairs in advance of the Lisbon referendum. It is impossible to explain to people the benefits of institutional reform when they do not actually understand how the institutions function in the first place or how the EU works and how it affects this country. What measures is the Government going to take to improve that situation?
Before I hand over to my colleague, Deputy Timmins, I ask the Minister of State what, in his opinion, are the obstacles to the Lisbon treaty in some shape or form — or at least the critical aspects of the treaty — being ratified or given a legal standing in Ireland? How does he see us finding our way around these obstacles?
I welcome the Minister of State. As he said he was happy to take questions on the broad concept of EU and Lisbon, I have a few brief questions in this regard. Was there any issue in the research that surprised him? Does he have a view on whether we should seek to revisit the McKenna judgment or bring in legislation to address it? The Minister of State recently paid a visit to the European Parliament. Could he give us any indication of how he was received? Did he get a feeling of the views of our colleagues on where we stand at the moment or what we should or should not be doing? What expectations are there of Ireland in this regard?
The Minister gave a speech in a personal capacity at the Humbert School in Mayo. If a second referendum was to be run — I am not pre-empting any decision — would he consider the concept of posing a series of questions to give people the option of opting in to judicial and home affairs or becoming a full player in Common Foreign and Security Policy on a case-by-case basis? Is that a possibility?
If members are looking for plain speaking I will give it to them. I personally believe it would be a tragedy of gargantuan proportions if we turn our back on Europe. Future generations would look back and ask us why. If future generations could see us today they would ask what in the name of God is stopping us from ratifying.
The Lisbon treaty, although it is far from perfect — there are very few human activities that are perfect — is the extraordinary result of eight years of hard work in putting together concessions and compromises which eventually reached a particular point. One of the great privileges of my political life was to sit with 105 other men and women, most of whom were democratically elected, in the Convention on the Future of Europe to work on it. One of the things I resent most about the untruthfulness of the campaign waged in this country up to 12 June was the suggestion that faceless bureaucrats and non-elected elites had produced the treaty. Not only is that untrue, but the process was put forward with the deliberate intention of deceiving.
A question was asked about the fallout from the referendum. There is always a difficulty in debate. Sometimes if one is forthright and tells people things as one believes them to be, one is accused of being threatening and overbearing and of talking down to people. I have four children and I want them to have a good future in this country. I share that with one of the leading opponents of the treaty. I have invested all of my life in this country. We do not share that.
For my entire adult life I have been involved in European affairs because I believe passionately in the European Union. I believe we did not secure full independence until we joined it. We pooled small amounts of our sovereignty to gain something greater. When I worked in the Department of Finance, we would have to wait for a telephone call from the Treasury to tell us what the interest rate would be. If people think that was sovereignty, they are guilty of the wildest self-delusion.
Deputy Creighton is right when she says Georgia, the financial crisis and the turmoil in world markets have made a fundamental difference to the way European Union member states look at the Lisbon treaty. Those who try to discount that change do the country a great disservice. The Heads of State and Government of 27 member states went into the Jeronimo monastery in Lisbon on 13 December 2007 and signed the treaty. None of them thought it was perfect but they all regarded it as an honest effort and the best available to them and their citizens.
By January 2009, at least 25 member states will have ratified the Lisbon treaty. They believe it is the best thing for the European Union and individual member states. Most important, they believe it is the best thing for their citizens. If they believe this is the best process for their citizens, they have a moral obligation to move ahead with it. If I believe something is the best thing for the Irish people, I do it. I may be wrong but if I have a strong conviction and I am morally impelled to move in a particular direction, I do so.
The implication of Deputy Creighton's question is that there was not enough knowledge among the population. That must be corrected. We are looking at how we can go further. A great effort was made to engage the citizens. The forum, for example, was unique.
Deputy Timmins asked about research. The findings on conscription amazed me. They showed that some were being extraordinarily dishonest with the people. There is no European army and not a pup's chance of there ever being conscription.
We must live with the McKenna judgment. It is amazing that someone who has never been elected can demand as much time as, for example, the Leader of the Opposition. However, that is how our law stands.
With regard to the attitude of the European Parliament to Ireland, there is a great deal of anxiety to assist us in this matter. With regard to running a second referendum bit by bit, my personal view is that it would be extremely difficult. We must address the individual issues which worried the people. Only when that process is complete and we have responses to all the issues can we go back to the people.
I thank the Minister of State for coming. His willingness to come to the sub-committee is to be commended.
On the issue of holding a second referendum, the Minister of State has said he is more concerned that we get it right than that it is done quickly. What is the current state of play? There seems to be an increasing sense of urgency among our colleagues abroad that Ireland should produce a road map sooner rather than later. They do not seem to share the view of the Minister of State. Is the Government considering holding a second referendum in the short term or having a longer period of reflection and getting things right?
The Minister of State referred to the 9,000 EU legislative measures and 2,000 directives which, I presume, have come from the European Union since 1973. That is an average of 57 directives and 250 legislative measures per annum. That is not to be sneezed at in terms of the quantity of legislation that emanates from the European Union.
Quite clearly it is paramount to have an input at the earliest opportunity in the making of that legislation. I note that the Secretary General envisages a situation in which there would be a greater involvement by national parliaments in the work programme of the Commission and the European institutions. Could she elaborate a little further on that? Currently there is no mechanism whereby the national parliaments get involved in any formal sense prior to draft material coming before them. In that sense the stable door has been opened and the horse has bolted because the role we have in scrutiny terms is a tidying up mechanism. Can the Secretary General envisage the creation of a formal situation where national parliaments would become effective stakeholders to be consulted by the Commission in a formal fashion as the business community and trade unions are currently consulted? Parliaments are not currently consulted.
Another area we have been exploring over the past couple of days is the role of national parliaments vis-à-vis the Government and how we hold the Government accountable in terms of what happens in Brussels. We have heard from the Danish, German and British Parliaments and the parliamentary committees. They have different variations on the subject. We set up our scrutiny committee in 2002 and we have a particular mechanism. There is the scrutiny reserve in Britain. There is a variation of a mandate, a pretty full mandate, in Denmark where they effectively mandate the Minister to carry out their wishes, or so they say. The Germans have a written statutory co-operation agreement with the Government where, effectively, the European affairs committee is not just a committee of Parliament but is the Parliament for purposes of dealing with European matters.
All of these are fairly new to us in terms of how we might go forward. Has the Minister of State any comment on whether the Government would be amenable to some of the measures involving accountability? To what degree would it cut across constitutional powers in terms of the Executive or limit the role of the Minister? I would like the Minister of State to say something further on our primary and secondary transposition. We beefed up our secondary transposition mechanisms in 2007 to give more authority to the Minister through a statutory instrument to deal with matters and bypass Parliament. That is not the utmost in transparency. Is the Minister of State satisfied that our transposition mechanisms are adequate?
I will deal with the last question first. The fact that we have moved from being one of the least successful countries in terms of transposition, and I claim credit because it happened during my time, to being with the main body and achieving the 1% is a good thing. The point the Deputy is touching on is a very interesting and subtle one. It is the point that it is okay for the Government and the Department to do the transposition to their satisfaction, but what about the Oireachtas? That is one of the great tragedies. We were going to create a whole new legal order with all of the national parliaments getting every draft the same day as it comes to individual governments so the draft would go to the permanent representative and to the contact at the national parliament. That is one of the things we have lost and that I hope we can regain.
I have heard it from our Danish colleagues and, in particular, German colleagues that they are concerned to further push out the boat. Had Ireland ratified the Lisbon treaty, it would have given more power to Parliament over the Executive than Bunreacht na hÉireann. This is a very important point that, again, was lost sight of. In the extreme cases, we would have had veto rights. Seanad Éireann which has very limited rights under Bunreacht na hÉireann would have had veto rights if the treaty were to come into effect.
When Hans-Gert Pöttering spoke to the Seanad a few months ago, he made the point that the European Parliament had become a different place since he joined it in 1979 and it was not recognisable in terms of its legislative involvement. It would have been an equally revolutionary step forward for our Parliament. This will bring challenges. If one considers the Danish or other cases, there is a different electoral process and a different rhythm to politics in many of the other member states. There are demands on our time which our electoral process imposes on Members of Dáil Éireann and Members of Seanad Éireann who wish to pass to Dáil Éireann. The additional powers that would be given to the Oireachtas are very significant, including a veto and the right to have drafts on the same day as the Government. It would have given the power to the Oireachtas to decide how it wished to track an issue from beginning to end. The most important aspect is that citizens and civil society and citizens' groups in Ireland would have a much closer awareness of the processes involved. Although we can track issues through the permanent representation and do so very well and can track interdepartmentally, the same tracking mechanism is not available to the Oireachtas. There would be a sea-change in the role of the Oireachtas, which would bring other pressures.
A question was asked about a second referendum and mention was made of the French Presidency. I know this sometimes bores people but the French Presidency has handled the issue superbly. There was a degree of trepidation as to what might or might not be said or how many people had put their foot in their mouth. The French Presidency has behaved in an exemplary fashion. President Sarkozy has said publicly and told me privately that the starting point must be to respect the Irish people's decision. This is his sincere belief and he is right because the Lisbon treaty will not take effect until it is ratified by all 27 member states. The Irish people have made a decision and it will never be ratified until they revisit that decision.
Deputy Timmins asked about views in the European Parliament. There is a whole series of timelines for us, one of which is the timeline for the European Parliament. Twelve countries will be affected by the decision we made. For example, Spain will lose four MEPs under the Nice process as opposed to the Lisbon treaty. Malta which was looking forward to having the minimum size representation would have gained an extra MEP. This was the country that promoted that view that there should be a minimum number. This is having a big impact on member states. My Spanish counterpart made the point to me last week that they did not know whether they were proceeding under the Nice or Lisbon treaty. Unless the Lisbon treaty is ratified, they will be proceeding under the Nice treaty.
The bigger problem for us all is the Commission because the legal requirement is for the Commission to be smaller than the total number of states because we, the Irish people, voted for and ratified the Nice treaty and have now rejected the treaty that would have given us one commissioner per member state until 2014. Although people have been ingenious in suggesting there will be 27 minus one, I am not sure which person they have in mind. One critic wrote to me saying it would be only fair to have an alphabetic system and then suggested we should ask Belgium to surrender a commissioner. I know what the second word would be if that proposition were made to the average Belgian citizen but if one was going down the line alphabetically in the French language, Allemagne would be the first country and we would get a fairly short answer there. The only number on which there ever has been agreement is 18. This is one of the great tragedies, because I have explained already to this committee my view on what would have happened.
The Deputy mentioned 9,000 legislative measures over the 50 years of the acquis, which is a huge body of law. This has to be the case, because it puts 27 states under a common basis. We should not lose sight of the fact that some of the law has been revolutionary in its impact. I remember as a young civil servant in 1973 reading the treaty very carefully and pointing out to one of my superiors that equal pay was mentioned in it. My superior told me that it was a desideratum and does not necessarily apply. The wonderful thing was that the European Court of Justice took a decision on this, and 51% of the people of this country got the civil rights that they should have had before that. This body of law has been progressive, dynamic and dramatic in many cases.
The figures in the law are declining, because the President of the Commission has made the point that we must try to do more within the existing body of law, rather than keep adding to the body of law. I think he is right.
Senators de Búrca and Mullen are sharing time, so I will remind each Senator when two minutes have elapsed before handing over to the Minister of State, just to ensure that everybody has their say.
I welcome the Minister of State to the sub-committee. He made reference in the discussion to the provisions of the Lisbon treaty that would have given national parliaments greater power to scrutinise decision making at a European level, and in monitoring the subsidiarity principle. That is very true and many people regret the fact that those provisions have not come into effect. Would the Minister of State agree that even without the Lisbon treaty, it is possible for national parliaments to play a much stronger role in overseeing and scrutinising the development of EU legislation?
To date, this sub-committee has had representatives from the Danish, British and German Parliaments, all of whom talked about the systems they have in place. These systems seem very robust and capable of bringing about the type of joined-up government that seems to be lacking here. The Minister of State was defending the democratic nature of EU decision making and law making, but I would argue that this happens at an EU level. The decision making at an EU level is quite admirable, but the link between national parliaments and European institutions seems to me to be where the democratic deficit arises. Until national parliaments begin to bring policy discussions back to a national level and scrutinise the decisions made by Ministers at the Council, then that democratic deficit will not be addressed. Would the Minister of State agree that there is much we can do to address that deficit, even if we have to wait some time before the treaty is ratified?
The delay in transposing directives is an issue close to my heart, because there are many EU directives in environmental protection that have not been transposed due to significant delays. At one point, Ireland had not correctly transposed up to 30 EU environmental directives. The Commission gave a number of reasoned opinions about our failure to transpose certain environmental directives within the timeframe agreed. Legal action can be threatened and fines imposed if we fail to do this within the time agreed.
There is a difficulty in all this, because EU citizens do not have any comeback where that happens. In order to have a direct right of appeal to the European Court of Justice, it is necessary for an EU directive that is not implemented to have a direct impact on the individual. It is often the case that the failure to transpose an environmental directive might not directly impact on the individual, but more on the community as a whole. Not one referral has been made from the Irish courts on a matter of EU law to the European Court of Justice. Will the Minister of State respond to that issue and give his suggestions on how that delay in transposing EU environmental directives might be tackled?
I welcome the Minister of State and his officials, some of whom I have met previously. Does the Minister of State feel in hindsight that the Government failed the Irish people by acquiescing in or encouraging our fellow member states to go ahead and ratify after the Irish people had expressed their verdict on Lisbon? Could that be interpreted in any way other than to pile the pressure on Irish people as we sought to work out what our vote had meant? What good was served by the Government acquiescing in the ratification by other member states? Would it not have been better to ask them to wait and see how we worked it out, which would have been more respectful of the Irish verdict?
Does the Minister of State believe enough is being done at European level to explain that what happened in the Lisbon referendum was not a vote against the EU or in favour of pulling out of the EU? Is enough being said to get the point across that beyond the Lisbon treaty, Ireland has rights which it expects to be respected? The Secretary General of the Commission today suggested in a vague but nonetheless troubling way that Ireland could not have it both ways and that the other member states would insist on going forward with the treaty, but she did not clarify that our existing rights would be respected. Perhaps the Minister of State will do so.
Does the Minister of State accept that Ireland has certain distinctive traditions in regard to what I might call sensitive social issues such as abortion, family, marriage and respect for life at all stages, and that these traditions are not being reflected in the actions of the European Union in general? I am not necessarily talking about what Ireland is required to do within its own borders but also what is done on our behalf.
I could give the Minister of State chapter and verse about the influence of certain NGOs with an ideological view which would be at variance with Irish constitutional and legal traditions. They appear to get a great hearing at EU level, particularly from the Commission, and also appear to get a lot of funding. I do not hear of organisations representing, for example, pro-life viewpoints or respect for the traditional family based on marriage getting anything like the same access to power. While I did not get agreement from the Secretary General of the Commission that there might be such a bias, does the Minister of State believe this is an issue or that there is a bias? Does he sense the Irish people, or a significant number of them, voted in part because they believe there is such a bias and because they have concerns about how the Charter of Fundamental Rights might be interpreted down the line, and also, beyond that, because they have concerns about how existing treaties might be interpreted or implemented?
If the Minister of State accepts any of what I propose, does he believe it possible for us to rectify the situation through opt-outs if we were to have a second referendum, or would opt-outs or protocols constitute renegotiation, which we are told is verboten?
The Senator's time is concluded.
I will leave it at that.
To take the last point, we have a protocol on abortion, which is respected. I happen to be very strongly pro-life and believe strongly in the right to life. That is my view and I make no apology for it. I was recently asked whether this means I am a member of Opus Dei but it does not. I know many people in Opus Dei and in the Freemasons, and they are fine people, but I am not one of them.
It is amazing the number of people who are asked about their membership of various organisations.
I make the point because I do not see that we should apologise for being pro-life, no more than we should apologise for any of the other views we have. I do not believe there is a bias against the Irish or that there is any objective basis for putting that view forward. There is of course a different view in other countries which would probably be reflected in the way those people come forward.
The Senator raised an important point to which I want to reply directly. Opt-outs, declarations and the like are possible, although I do not believe in opt-outs. I do not know if the committee covered this issue with the Danes. If so, the Senator will have heard that the Danish people went for the opt-out route in 1992 and very much regretted it — this is true of many Danish parliamentarians. I believe it would be quite possible to elaborate and create distinctions given the position we have, which reflects a more traditional view of family and the right to life. Here, we differ among ourselves on those issues, too. Those are capable of being protected. I was asked specifically if those sensitive social issues were reflected in the "No" vote. Oddly enough, I would have thought they were, but when one reads the research it suggests that they were not, which is quite strange. It is contra-intuitive. Like me, the Senator would probably have taken the view that they would have played a much bigger role than indicated in the research. The research we received, which members have read, shows that there was a multiplicity of factors involved.
The Senator asked about the issue of acquiescing to ratification. I do not want to be controversial but use of the word "acquiescing" suggests that the Senator is not aware of what has happened in previous cases. In 1992, when the Danish people voted "No" in the Maastricht referendum, the Irish people went out and voted "Yes" less than ten days later. Nobody said that the Irish people should not have the right to make their views known. After France voted "No" on the constitutional treaty, seven other member states went ahead and voted "Yes". In fact, there was a ratification referendum in Luxembourg shortly afterwards. The ratification process is a right of every member state, so it is misrepresenting the facts to suggest that any one government acquiesced. It is not a question of acquiescing; each member state goes through its own constitutional process. The Senator will recall that there was a big debate, although he was not part of it, suggesting that every member state should have a referendum simply because we had one. We must respect the right of other member states to determine their constitutional issues in a different way than we do. Part of that right is the right to have their own ratification processes.
Moving back to Senator de Búrca's question on whether national parliaments could play a more progressive role, the answer has to be "Yes". One always hopes to improve the way one does things. It is worth reminding ourselves from time to time, however, that when the original Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation in the EU was established, it was regarded by other member states as a model. I remember representatives of other member states coming here to look at how we did it. The sheer volume of material involved in the acquis was regarded as very daunting.
There is a problem in Ireland in that there is a huge demand on TDs for constituency work, which does not apply to their counterparts in the rest of Europe. The model that has to be determined here will have to be more appropriate to our circumstances. One of the great benefits of the Lisbon treaty was the extension of democracy, including the fact that it would give the Oireachtas powers over the Executive that Bunreacht na hÉireann does not give. It was one of the reasons we had to run a referendum in the first place.
Does the Minister of State think there is a danger——
No, Senator, please. The ten minutes for this section is almost up and everybody will have an opportunity to come in. I ask the Senator to bear with me.
The Senator also asked if the link between national parliaments and the institutions would change, and yes it would. It would change for the better because national parliaments would receive the draft legal instruments on the same day as national governments. A network of European national parliaments is being created, which will have a revolutionary effect. I think that was the point the Senator was making.
May I comment briefly?
No.
I am sorry, Chairman, but in the ground rules we have laid down, this time is supposed to be set aside for interaction. I would like to ask the Minister of State——
Excuse me, Senator, I wish to respond to you. I have given everybody ten minutes. This session is way over ten minutes already. We will finish up this session in a moment and everybody will have an opportunity to put a point. We will have time set aside next week to decide whether this format is working. If the Senator feels it is not working we will discuss it then, but the ten minutes for this module has expired. I ask the Senator to bear with us. We will go into open session in a couple of minutes when the Senator will have an opportunity to put her point.
My understanding was that the ten minutes assigned to us was an opportunity to interact with the speaker so that we could pick up on points, which is a productive use of the time. I am not sure whether the Minister of State fully picked up on the point I was trying to make. Does he think there is a danger that somehow a proper or fuller role for national parliaments will be deferred until the ratification of the Lisbon treaty? The point I attempted to make was that, in the meantime, there is plenty of opportunity for the Oireachtas to strengthen its oversight role in scrutinising European legislation, whether or not the Lisbon treaty is ratified. I want to get the Minister of State's view on that.
I have let the Senator make her point and will ask the Minister of State to respond when we finish the session. We will talk about how these modules are operating in private session next week, as we agreed. I have not let any party or member push it beyond what we agreed. We have got the Senator's question and will let the Minister of State respond to it, but the ten minutes for her module is up and I want to let others speak.
We have a permanent representative in Brussels. Would the Minister of State consider that national parliaments should have their own representatives in Brussels? Does he think there should be somebody there with a direct line from the European institutions to the national parliament, as distinct from the official permanent representative who is acting in a national capacity?
The Charter of Fundamental Rights was mentioned by Senator Mullen. It is difficult to see a situation where fundamental rights would be a problem for anybody. We have the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights has been provided for in our own legislation. What has been done here is to put together all the best statements of human, civil and political rights across the globe in a document that would underpin the European Union in terms of best practice on rights. No specific competences in respect of abortion, marriage and the family are given to the European Union. Senator Mullen is not here, but I wonder whether the Minister of State would make a statement on whether there is anything behind the fear expressed in terms of sensitive social rights in that respect. Perhaps he might refer to the interpretation of the European Court of Justice and what it might lead on to. It seems from what Senator Mullen is saying that there is a perception in certain quarters that the floodgates would open if we were to sign up to the Lisbon treaty and that the Charter of Fundamental Rights plus the European Court of Justice are the channels through which this would occur.
My question to the Minister of State is about the concept of unanimity and the fact that many who voted "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty might be angry if a mechanism was found for other countries to proceed. I know they cannot proceed with the treaty but some other legal mechanism may be found for them to implement what is included in the treaty without the agreement of Ireland. There is either unanimity or there is not. I worry about the danger of cynicism developing in the public mind if we say the principle of unanimity is in place but at the end of the day, just because this is a small nation that has rejected the treaty, it is not really available at all.
I do not believe the Minister of State answered my initial question which was about the handling of matters in the period since the referendum by Cabinet Ministers, particularly the Taoiseach. I would like a response because it is important that we see leadership from the Government and a contextualisation of the "No" vote and its implications for Ireland and its good standing. It is relevant to this module because we are talking about the implications of the Lisbon treaty.
On Deputy Costello's point about the European Court of Justice — I would like the Minister of State to respond to this question — I do not think the problem is specifically that particular competences in respect of social policy have been handed to the European Union or the Commission. The problem is the Commission's interpretation of its role in certain areas and its stepping beyond its brief. I am a strong supporter of the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is absolutely crucial and something for which we must fight. However, I understand Senator Mullen's concerns about the latitude and scope of the European Court of Justice and his fears that it will set precedents which will have a detrimental effect on Irish society and override the Constitution and the values enshrined in it.
The Minister of State has referred a number of times to strengthening the role of our national Parliament in relation to the European Parliament and alluded to the Lisbon treaty as a way of doing so. Ignoring the content of the treaty, what does he think the Oireachtas could do to strengthen our role in the European Union?
The Lisbon treaty can only be ratified if it is unanimously supported by member states. On the other hand, the Minister of State suggests the political reality could cause other member states, acting in their own best interests, to go ahead and ratify it.
That is not so.
That is how I interpreted what the Minister of State said. Please correct me if I am wrong. Could he square this circle? There is an expectation that we will move beyond the Lisbon treaty, despite the fact that one member state has not yet ratified it.
The Chairman's last question was also asked by Deputy Flynn. The position is simple. The Lisbon treaty will never take effect, unless it is ratified by all member states. However, if member states believe there are key elements in the treaty which are vital to the interests of their citizens and the European Union, they will find ways to move forward. That is a reality, not a threat. Many of us belong to clubs. If, in a club of 500 members, four oppose the building of an extension, the others may eventually decide to move on without the objectors. The European Union cannot move forward under the Lisbon treaty, but there is no reason to believe stasis will be the natural position for it. We will find a two tier European Union. A group of member states, using enhanced co-operation or some other mechanism, will move ahead. If there is a two tier European Union, will Ireland be in the first or second division? It does not require any particular knowledge of European law to see that in the natural order of things we would be in the second division. I ask members to picture a board member of a large United States corporation which is about to make a foreign direct investment decision. Deputy Creighton is right to say there has always been a reluctance to speak about the consequences of our rejection of the Lisbon treaty. Every action we take has a consequence. Anyone who thinks there are consequence free actions is not living in the real world.
Governments of member states which believe it is in their best interest to have closer co-operation on justice and home affairs or environmental issues will find a way to do this and we will be in the second division. That will have a cost. When it comes to looking for foreign direct investment, other countries competing in the same pool will be able to say Ireland is no longer a full member of the European Union but in a semi-detached place. If one were a director making a decision on behalf of one's shareholders and one wanted to get into the European market, would one risk one's shareholders' capital by putting it in a place one perceived, perhaps wrongly, to be semi-detached? One would not. That is the reality we face.
Deputy Creighton's point is a little unfair. There were two robust speeches in the past six or seven weeks by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin. In one he suggested that if we were not part of the European mainstream, we would be in the same position as Iceland. Some said that was a threatening thing to say. It happens to be the reality. The reality is — I agree with Deputy Creighton's point — that there is not enough robustness. I happen to believe in plain speaking. Dancing around and believing there are no consequences to what we do does not inform people of the truth. Unfortunately, sometimes when a Minister on the "Yes" side of this debate makes a point there is an unwillingness to listen and he or she is accused of bullying.
Mr. Paul Rellis was here yesterday. He is a young Irishman who has made an extraordinary impact in his particular domain. He is incredibly impressive as the chairperson of the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland. It would be foolhardy to discount his views as to the impact of where we are. It would be worse than foolhardy; it would be criminal. If there are people who know what international investment is about and they say there is a potential downside and we do not act on it, we are behaving irresponsibly.
Senator Mullen has mentioned the charter of rights, about which I know he is very sincere and has concerns. Others also have concerns. However, I make the point that Deputies Costello and Creighton also made, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union——
Let me make a suggestion. Perhaps the Minister of State might facilitate the sub-committee. The Senators have raised a number of points. I would like to suspend the sitting for five minutes when the Minister of State has finished. I have a small bit of business to do with the clerk to the committee. Would the Minister of State be willing to facilitate us if we suspended for five minutes to do some work, by which time the Senators will have returned?
It would be a pleasure. If the answers are overlong, I apologise but I respect the views of the sub-committee.
It is not that; I want to have the points addressed. When we finish this, we will not break but will proceed directly to private session and will finish on time.
Can we continue with other business not raised by the Senators? I raised a question about the German, Danish and British systems. These matters were not raised by any Senator.
Yes.
Will we continue?
Would the Minister of State mind if we suspended the sitting for five minutes? I will ensure we finish at approximately 4 p.m.
The sub-committee went into private session at 3.30 p.m. and resumed in public session at 3.40 p.m.
I thank the Minister of State for facilitating that suspension and invite him to continue with his response to the points raised by Senators Mullen and de Búrca.
On the issue raised by Senator de Búrca I was about to answer in the positive as to whether there would be a practical effect. This will be the effect if the Nice treaty is not superseded by the Lisbon treaty. For example, the yellow card and the red card device will not become law. It will not become law in Ireland for the simple reason that we would need ratification by way of a constitutional referendum to make it law. The Senator asked an important question because it is one of those concrete things which can be cited. It is a loss for democracy that we do not have those devices.
Senators Mullen and Costello both raised the point about the charter. I understand people's concerns but I will make a general point about the charter. The charter draws together all of the human rights issues that are present in a whole variety of other documents that Ireland has signed up to. It makes it clear that they are already inherent in European law. It does not extend the EU's competences.
The Senator made the not unreasonable point about the European Court of Justice. This issue was touched on this morning, and Ms Catherine Day made the point that there are quite strict limitations on the interpretive role of the ECJ, which has had a relatively narrow focus in how it interprets over the years. The EU has no role and the ECJ has no role in internal laws on abortion or marriage.
I was a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, and when these issues were raised by Hans-Gert Pöttering, he made the point that they were not competences for the EU and never would become competences for the EU. They must remain with member states. I agree with the general point made by Deputy Costello. There is a wonderful benefit in having the charter. It is the most lucid document that has been produced.
Parliamentary control in general depends on the national position from case to case. The Swedish system is very different to ours, but it has not been successfully translated elsewhere. Many of those oversight arrangements are specific to the individual member states. Deputy Flynn asked how we can square the concept of unanimity with the idea that other member states would move forward. The answer to that is glaringly self-evident. The answer is sovereign, independent, nation states. Sovereign independent nation states can make decisions in concert. They do not have to repudiate any constitutional position within the EU, but they have the right to make decisions. The reality is that they may use mechanisms like enhanced co-operation to do so.
Speaking on 8 October, the Minister said that we must examine the consequences. He outlined the political and potential economic consequences of being isolated. That was reported in the national press. I am not sure if his similar speech at the GAERC was reported as widely. It was only carried in one newspaper.
I would like the Minister of State to refer to the question I raised about the EU environmental directives.
What is the Minister of State's opinion on the Danish, German and British mandatory systems of parliamentary scrutiny?
I wish to return to a couple of things mentioned by the Minister of State. I asked him about the Government acquiescing in the ratification of the treaty by other member states, but it is not that I do not understand the normal procedure. If I recall correctly, our Danish visitors observed that they had gone ahead with ratification on the basis that the Irish Government had not asked that they do otherwise. They seemed to say it in such a way that had the Government asked them to delay it until we resolved this situation, they would have been happy to do so. I am just inferring this from what they said. Did the Government not just add to the pressure on the Irish people by not asking others to slow the game down at that point?
The Minister of State mentioned that there may well be a possibility for changes. He used the word "declarations" and said he did not like opt-outs. In the Danish context, the opt-outs proved to be very broad but it is not necessarily the case that opt-outs are a problem per se. However, the Minister did not mention the word “protocol”. I wonder if he would consider that protocols would be an appropriate way to go, or part of the appropriate way, or whether that would constitute renegotiation to the dissatisfaction of the other member states.
The Minister of State did not get a chance to address my specific question about bias within the Commission. This is important because the Minister of State pointed out that the EU has no role on internal laws on abortion. The word "internal" is crucial. Lots of things are being done in Ireland's name. I could point out to the Minister of State the amount of money being given out by the Commission. For example, the International Planned Parenthood Federation received €3,940,000 and Marie Stopes International, which is not just a service provider but a lobby group in favour of abortion rights worldwide, which would violate our constitutional values, received €1,365,000 in 2006. Is the Minister of State comfortable with this? Can he give me equivalent examples of pro-life organisations or organisations which would tend more to support and spread our constitutional values, for such they are until the majority of people change them in a constitutional referendum, at European level?
It is not enough to point out or suggest, because it is just a suggestion that can be contradicted, that because the EU pledges not to directly intervene or to seek to override our domestic laws the whole problem is solved. Things are being done in our name and positions are being adopted on our behalf. Diplomats from the EU at the UN review of the fourth World Conference on Women announced opposition to a US amendment which would have clarified that the 1995 conference platform does not include a right to abortion. Are we happy that this is the way we are being represented?
It is not the case that on every single occasion Ireland pops up and says "You have no right to speak for us on that matter." That type of subsidiarity has not been secured, as I understand it. There is a question about the potential bias of the Commission on which I would like the Minister of State to comment in terms of what kind of initiatives are funded. I pointed out the self-referential nature of this process, whereby certain bodies are funded and are in turn sought to consult. It is not too much of a concession for the Minister of State to state there is a bias that perhaps needs to be rectified.
On the issue of the charter, the Minister of State may be correct to state it seeks to draw together all the human rights issues that are already present in various forms in European laws to which we have subscribed. I am not suggesting for one minute that part of the problem we face does not have to do with existing laws to which we have already signed up. Take, for example, section 37 of the Employment Equality Act, with regard to which the Commission was told to get lost by the Minister of State and the Government — I thank them for doing that much — in the context of its attempt to tell us we were interpreting the provisions of the relevant directive in a way that was too restrictive. That is an example of how we can sign up to things which have implications we do not foresee when the likes of the Commission go to unpack them, or which could well be interpreted in the event of a dispute by the European Court of Justice.
It is not just a matter of neutralising any danger in the Charter of Fundamental Rights if it exists. It is also a question of perhaps taking the opportunity now to do what we never did before, which is to examine the impact of EU treaties and derivative legislation on our social values and to make the decision not to decide them according to my point of view but to return decision-making power in full to the Irish people on those issues so that we may work out matters as we see fit.
I want to return to a question I asked the Minister of State earlier with regard to the role of national parliaments. Leaving aside the work on the Lisbon treaty, does the Minister of State believe there are changes we can make to our current system that will enhance the role of the Oireachtas?
I will take the last point because I did not deal with it earlier. There are ways under the existing arrangements that would certainly improve the position. I will give one specific example. Both the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and the Joint Committee on European Affairs do a lot of work but at best get two or three minutes coverage on our national television network. This means there is a disincentive for members to spend their time delving into EU legislation as this would effectively mean they are not delving into constituency work. There is a necessity for the work of the committee to be given wider recognition than has been the case and this would reward the effort of members.
Committees should have more energy applied to them in a general sense than is the case at present. Attendance at some committees can be desultory, which is a criticism of us all. When I was chairman of a committee I had this difficulty too, as we were running around the House looking for a quorum. If we were more attentive to committee work we would get better work done. That is a criticism of us all, not just of the committees.
To revert to the point I made to Senator de Búrca, the big things that will be lost in terms of parliamentary oversight are the new arrangements. Mr. Barroso has made arrangements, for example, for drafts to be sent out to national parliaments. Deputy Costello asked about a national parliament representative in Brussels and there is a contact point in the permanent representation in Brussels. All those issues need to be joined up, however, and a fairly radical examination will have to occur after these arrangements come into operation. Deputy Perry's report prioritised the work that will be done in some of those committees and that is something we could do. Basically, it would be so much better if we had all the powers.
On the issue of the transposition of EU regulations, there are currently four regulations——
Directives.
——or directives, which are up against their deadline in the Department. There are one or two difficult ones there. We have managed to get off the agenda many of the long-term ones. The biggest one was the nitrates directive, which had been there for 15 years. With a little bit of pressure we got it off the agenda.
Coming back to Senator Mullen's general point, I would take issue with him on the matter of protecting the traditional views we have in Ireland. It is important and is fully achieved. For example, the protocol on abortion could not be any clearer. I do not understand how we could get a protocol on a protocol that would take it any further. On the Senator's general comment about bias being reflected in funding for different international organisations, I would have to look at the totality to see if his assertion is correct or not.
I am happy to share my notes with the Minister of State.
That is grand because I always believe that if we share notes with each other we will all be better off. My primary concern is the fear that exists that, somehow or other, views can be imposed on us. I am not sure who makes the funding applications. It must be remembered that there are two sides to funding going out to any particular body, one of which is who applies and who does not. If there was a bias and, for example, one could show that organisations in the developing world who took a different view to the organisations the Senator mentioned had applied, but that they were all somehow discriminated against, it would have to be looked at. It is not a good idea to isolate Ireland from the entire process because of that. It is a different issue, which could be directed in a different way.
Senator Prendergast asked for a comparison between the Danish, British and German positions. The Danish position is quite unique because nobody has transposed that model anywhere else. The German situation is different because there is a strong tradition of parliamentary committees in Germany. The strength of their committee in this area is based on that long tradition. In the British and Irish cases there has been less of a tradition of strong parliamentary committees. There has been a move towards them in recent years, but basically we are doing a lot of catching up in that area. We should not discount the work done by Oireachtas committees, although I know that is not the Senator's intention.
No, it is not.
If one looks at the report produced by Deputy Perry's committee, in particular it outlines how one can be more effective within the existing framework than committees have been. There is a difference between cobbling things together within the existing arrangements and going for what was a right of parliaments to have things like the veto, the yellow card, the red card, and the right to be consulted and heard. That takes it to a different dimension.
I thank the Minister for his contribution and for responding to the questions. With regard to his comments on the performance of sub-committees, I assure him this one will not be found wanting in terms of the effort we are putting into our work. I thank him again for his time.
Thank you. I must say — and this is in no sense patronising — that there has never in the history of the Oireachtas been a committee that has a bigger weight of responsibility on its shoulders. The work of this committee will be factored into the decisions and future policies of the Government in moving forward. The work of this committee is also being closely scrutinised outside this country. Other member states are watching to ensure we are doing everything we can to address the Irish problem. I have made the point several times, although not during the discussion here, that it is not just an Irish problem. Issues of communication and of creating a dialogue — issues on which Europe speaks to the hearts of its citizens — are issues for the whole Union. That is why I believe we can and will work out a set of arrangements that will address all the reasonable concerns of the Irish people.
The sub-committee went into private session at 3.57 p.m. and adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 October 2008.