I thank the Chairman. I am delighted to have been invited to address the committee and I wish it every success in its work. I will limit my introductory remarks to ten minutes or one or two minutes longer, but not much longer.
I welcome this opportunity to set out the role of Ireland's permanent representation to the European Union and to offer the committee my perspective on the functioning of EU institutions and on Ireland's role therein. I would be happy to try to answer any questions members may have in light of my comments.
The role of the permanent representation in Brussels is to protect and promote Ireland's interests in the EU. It has officers assigned from virtually every Department. In the case of most Departments, several officers are assigned. The largest contingent comes from the Department of Foreign Affairs. There are also four members of the Defence Forces and an officer assigned by the Attorney General's office.
We are delighted to work closely with the representative of the Houses of the Oireachtas in Brussels, Mr. John Hamilton. Like the representatives of other national parliaments, he is based in the European Parliament building, but he figures on the permanent representation's organigram and is a part of our common effort in looking after Ireland's interests in Brussels.
The permanent representation has a staff of 90, including 55 staff of diplomatic rank. By a long way, it is Ireland's largest diplomatic mission. I mention this simply to underline Ireland's substantial presence in Brussels, which reflects the importance that successive Governments have attached to influencing the EU decision-making process to the benefit of our people and in pursuit of their aspirations.
The core function of the permanent representation is to represent Ireland's interests in the Council of Ministers, working under the direction of the Government and in conjunction with the Irish Administration as a whole. The Council, as members of the sub-committee are aware, is one of the three main decision making institutions of the EU. It adopts EU legislation, as well as the annual budget, jointly with the European Parliament, in both cases based on proposals tabled by the European Commission. It plays the lead role in developing the EU's foreign policy. At the highest level — Heads of State or Government — it plays the predominant role in shaping the overall development of the EU and, where necessary, in agreeing the key compromises in major over-arching EU negotiations.
The permanent representation is closely involved in each of the four levels at which the Council operates. At the working group level, officers represent Ireland at the dozens of meetings that take place every day and week in Brussels to work on individual legislative proposals and to develop policy across the range of areas in which the EU has competence. Officials travelling from Departments in Dublin are also heavily involved in this work.
Three ambassadorial level committees, serviced in the case of each member state by its permanent representative, deputy permanent representative and political and security committee ambassador, meet at least once or twice every week to resolve issues that have not been resolved at working group level and to prepare ministerial discussion.
At ministerial level, Ireland is represented by the relevant Minister in each Council formation. The permanent representation provides advance guidance as well as on-the-spot, up-to-the-minute advice. In cases where a Minister may be unable to attend, the Irish delegation is led by myself or my deputy.
At the fourth and highest level, that of Heads of State or Government meeting in the European Council, the permanent representation provides support and advice in advance of and during the meetings as necessary.
It is in the Council of Ministers at every level that the elected governments of the member states, including Ireland, directly represent and defend their national views and interests. To put it more graphically, the Council is the one institution in which every member state sits behind a national nameplate, in our case "Éire — Ireland", since the recognition of Irish as an official language of the EU.
At every meeting in the Council, at every level, for every subject there is an Irish representative in the Irish seat representing Ireland's interests. I emphasise this point, although I know I have no need to do so to this sub-committee, because some media coverage gives the impression that Brussels is a vast amorphous bureaucracy handing down edicts to Ireland and other member states over which we have no influence or control. Nothing could be further from the truth. We advance our ideas and defend our corner in the Council consistently and effectively. We are tough where necessary and constructive where possible.
It is no mean thing, incidentally, to have a full seat at the table in Brussels even if, throughout our membership of the EU, we have been able to take that for granted. Some non-EU countries effectively have to implement a great part of EU legislation because they want access to our market but without having been represented at the table where that legislation was negotiated.
I emphasise the role of the Council, not to down play to the slightest degree the importance of either the European Parliament or the Commission. On the contrary, I emphasise constantly, including to my own staff, that if we are to optimise Ireland's influence in Brussels and to promote our interests successfully, we must also engage and interact, consistently and creatively, with the Parliament and the Commission.
The permanent representation has an excellent relationship with the Irish MEPs and works very closely with them in pursuit of Ireland's interests. MEPs are not bound to agree with the Government position. They quite naturally disagree with each other from one issue to another, but when it comes to protecting Irish interests, even when those interests may be defined in different ways, our aim is a profoundly shared one.
Likewise the permanent representation works closely with the European Commission to seek to influence the shape of proposals, which it considers tabling or which are being progressed through the Council. We interact with Commissioner McCreevy and his cabinet but also much more widely. There are more Irish officials in key senior positions in the Commission, including the most senior post of Secretary General, than is the case with any other small or medium-sized member state. However, our networking is by no means limited to Irish officials. The Commission is not some faceless bureaucracy which is set on ignoring us or, worse still, which is out to "get us". On the contrary, it is a particularly open organisation which listens to sensible ideas and rational arguments and engages in open-minded interaction with Governments, Parliaments, civil society and the media.
When I was invited to appear before the sub-committee today to give my perspective on the institutions of the European Union, I reflected carefully on which aspects of the EU's complex institutional structures my remarks might most usefully focus on. I do not want to trespass unduly on the sub-committee's time and would like to leave time to answer any questions members may have. Therefore, I will simply offer the committee some very brief personal reflections.
The aim and role of any Irish Government and administration in negotiations in Brussels is quite simply to protect and promote Ireland's interests. The permanent representation is honoured to play a role in that process. This may seem an obvious point but it is one which can be misunderstood. Irish Governments, in common with the governments of other member states, do not pursue some vague European interest distinct from, or in contradiction with, our national interests. However, our national interest increasingly includes an enormously important European dimension. It is in our national interest, for example, to be full members of the EU, that the EU functions effectively, that it is equipped to address the challenges ahead and that we are sensitive to the concerns of others so that they will be sensitive to our national concerns. This European dimension is not in contradiction with our national interest but rather an integral part of the wider, long-term definition of that national interest.
The challenge of advancing our interests in the EU is not an easy one. Negotiations in Brussels often involve strongly competing interests and, as in any international negotiation, hard-won compromises. I am in a better position than many to understand the depth of the challenges involved. We, like others, have a limited amount of ammunition and we must use it well. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that during the 35 years of our EU membership, successive Irish Governments have been exceptionally successful — many of our partners would say uniquely successful — in advancing our interests.
Many ingredients have contributed to our success but none have been more important than goodwill. The goodwill of partners and EU institutions has been built up painstakingly through constructive engagement, several successful Irish Presidencies and respecting the concerns and aspirations of others. That goodwill is not a whimsical feather in our cap but a vital negotiating resource.
We have managed to promote our interests successfully through the different decision-making procedures of the EU, through unanimity for the most sensitive matters and majority voting for most other issues. It is right that the most sensitive matters should remain subject to unanimity, including taxation and defence. It is also the case, however, as our experience demonstrates clearly, that we have been able to promote our interests successfully across a wide range of areas with majority voting — more successfully than would have been the case if unanimity had applied. Decision-making in the European Union is not just about being able to say no. It is also about being able to say yes. The completion of the internal market and agriculture are two examples where decision making by majority vote over several decades has proved very much in our interests.
Apart from the decision-making procedures which apply in each case, EU institutions operate in a spirit of accommodation and respect. The instinct is never to isolate delegations, push them into a corner or press for an early vote. Actual votes are rare. The way of doing business is to try to understand and accommodate the legitimate concerns of others, to find reasonable compromises. Ireland is broadly supportive of a large majority of proposals discussed in Brussels. Where we have concerns, we explain them, lobby and form alliances to have them addressed. Our overwhelming experience has been that compromises are found to address our concerns, as well as those of others. We rarely find ourselves outvoted. Needless to say, the spirit of accommodation and respect is a two-way street. Smaller member states tend to be comfortable in the evolving institutional structure of the European Union. This reflects the balances within and between the institutions — where the role of the Commission as the defender of the common interest remains important. It reflects the spirit of accommodation and mutual respect which I have described and which is the very lifeblood of the Union. It reflects the reality that negotiations in the Council never break down into the large versus the small member states. Almost always, as Ireland seeks to form alliances, we can count one or more large member states on our side.
The European Union's institutions are imperfect, as all institutions are. However, in many ways, at the same time, they are remarkable, bearing as they do the weight of the greatest pooling of sovereignty, in agreed areas, in the history of relations between free democratic countries. One of their imperfections is that they may appear complex and difficult to understand. We must constantly work to streamline and make them more comprehensible to citizens. At the same time, a degree of complexity reflects the very nature of the European Union, in which the interests of all member states are taken into account. A degree of complexity is necessary and particularly important for smaller countries which in any context have a disproportionate need for clear laws and rules. There were many attempts to organise the European continent in a much simpler way during the centuries, involving the sending of armies or tanks across borders. These proved less successful.