JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on the Review of the Role of the Oireachtas in European Affairs) debate -
Wednesday, 26 May 2010

Houses of the Oireachtas and EU Legislation: Discussion with Irish MEPs

Chairman

An apology has been received from Senator Paschal Donohoe. We are missing two witnesses but they will probably join us shortly. I am delighted to welcome our punctual MEPs, Ms Nessa Childers, Mr. Seán Kelly and Ms Mairead McGuinness. Apologies have been received from Mr. Brian Crowley, MEP, Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, Mr. Jim Higgins, MEP, Pat the Cope Gallagher, MEP, Mr. Liam Aylward, MEP, Proinsias De Rossa, MEP and Ms Marian Harkin, MEP.

Before we begin members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Each witness will have five minutes within which to make their initial presentation following which I will allow questions from Members.

I invite Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP, to make his presentation following which we will hear presentations from Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, and Ms Nessa Childers, MEP.

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

I thank the Chairman for this opportunity. I offer my sympathies to all members on the tragic death this morning of Senator Kieran Phelan. Whatever arguments we may have in life, we are all colleagues at the end of the day and when a person dies suddenly we are all deeply affected.

It is a privilege to work as a member of the Fine Gael Party in Europe, in particular as a representative of Ireland. There are 736 MEPs in the House of Parliament in Brussels. This figure will shortly increase to 751, of which 15 members are Irish taking into account the three members from Northern Ireland with whom it is important we ensure a joint approach on matters of national concern. We are here today primarily as a result of the Lisbon treaty. Ireland played a huge part in passing that treaty, which resulted in an increase in our stature in Europe. Anytime people challenge the legitimacy of the European Union people from President Barroso to President Van Rompuy, invariably refer to Ireland returning a 67% vote in favour of the treaty, which was important.

The Lisbon treaty gives to the Houses of the Oireachtas powers to deal with various issues, in particular scrutiny of legislation that will come before the European Parliament, which is important. One of the obvious issues in the debate on the Lisbon treaty was the lack of relationship between citizens and the European Union which many people believe is remote, distant and in many instances over-bearing in terms of its trying to impose a European will on citizens, which of course is not true. These new powers seek to address this by way of the citizens' initiative which once signed by 1 million people across the European Union must be acted upon at European level.

In terms of law making, the involvement of the various national assemblies is important. We have an opportunity to play a leading role by taking seriously what is happening in Europe and by making any amendments or suggestions we believe necessary from an Irish point of view. While other parliaments may not be vigilant, it is important we remain vigilant. There is a belief that Ireland may not be as committed to the European Union as it ought to be even though the Lisbon treaty suggests otherwise. Important matters such as the yellow and red cards and so on are issues that we can discuss in more detail. Our being aware of the views of the Oireachtas in regard to any upcoming measures would be of assistance given the new powers Parliament has in regard to budget, the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy, matters which are currently being discussed. Parliament now has a more important role than before in regard to these matters.

Parliament is anxious to flex its muscles in Europe and is sending messages to the Commission and the Council that it not be taken for granted. This was evident recently when the Parliament rejected the swift proposals by the US to deal with various measures to counter terrorism. Parliament rejected these because it was concerned about data protection and so forth. As a result, the United States had to sit up and for the first time since former President Ronald Reagan visited the House more than 20 years ago it immediately sent Mr. Joe Biden to speak with the European Parliament, which was probably a direct recognition on the part of the United States of Parliament's important role and the need to engage with it. The same applies in regard to the Oireachtas. It is important we take issues seriously and that we scrutinise matters that might have relevance to Ireland, as would most matters. We must also find a way of communicating information and influencing decisions. I will now pass over to my colleagues to make their presentations. I congratulate the Chairman on the recent announcement of her engagement. I am delighted she likes men from Munster.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Kelly for his kind remarks. I have only just become aware of the tragic passing of Senator Phelan. I am sorry to hear that news which I am sure is a great shock to everybody.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

Mr. Kelly has given a good overview of our role and the wider issues around Lisbon. I will try to be more specific. The Lisbon treaty has created more work than perhaps those who wrote it envisaged in that we are now interpreting what it means for the European Parliament and national parliaments. This sub-committee has been doing that work quite diligently.

It appears to me there are three key issues in regard to how we will effectively implement the Lisbon treaty when it comes to national parliaments. The first is the issue of scrutinising legislation proposed by the Commission. It should be the case that we need not scrutinise each piece of legislation. I believe what we need is an early warning system which should come from the permanent representation of Ireland in regard to what particular legislation relates to and the reason there may be concern in terms of subsidiarity. The second issue is how this can be done in terms of time tabling. I do not know - members will need to answer this question - how co-operation with national parliaments currently works. I imagine it is weak. It may be more a case of we know each other and chat but do not engage. This will need to be more effective if the system of yellow and red cards in terms of legislation is to work. This clause may be included in the Lisbon treaty to get national parliaments to work better together. This question will need to be addressed by the sub-committee.

The issue of resources also arises. The sub-committee addresses in its reports the issue of scrutiny of proposals in terms of the availability of IT and staff resources. An issue not mentioned in the report is lobby groups and how they will feature in regard to Commission proposals. This is an issue which we could perhaps discuss later in this meeting.

On the political mindset around European issues, it is much easier to criticise outcomes and to ignore process than it is to engage in the process of forming legislation at the very earliest stages. I say this to elected representatives - holding up a mirror to myself - and also to lobby groups. I am critical of lobby groups who come to us too late in the day and criticise us when they have not engaged at the earliest stages. My colleague, Mr. Seán Kelly, referred earlier to the Common Agricultural Policy, an area in which I am involved. To the credit of the farm organisations in Ireland in particular and elsewhere across the European Union, they have engaged at the very earliest stages. In considering this new development for national parliaments under the Lisbon treaty, a change of mindset and deeper engagement is needed, which will take time. All those elected have many other issues with which to deal and it will present a difficulty for members to devote extra time to deal with European issues outside their national remit. The Chairman is particularly interested in European affairs. Many Members of the European Parliament know her because of her work as the youth member of the European People's Party but not everybody has that level of engagement. That is an aspect we will have to examine in general.

I did not become involved in politics until 2004. As I have said to colleagues in the European Parliament we, as parliamentarians, need to examine how we might work better and more effectively. It seems there are systems to assess performance in various workplaces but few systems or analysis of the effectiveness of the work of members of any parliament and how we could do our work better. The ash cloud disturbed our working programme and the system was not flexible enough to deal with that. The idea that Members of the European Parliament have to travel every week other than this week, which is a constituency week, needs to be addressed. That will not happen in the next year or two but it is something we will have to examine to enable us, as legislators, to be more effective.

I know from my time as a Member of the European Parliament that to be totally au fait with issues, one needs to read and understand the detail. I note members of the media are present. I get calls from members of the media and local radio stations - which we all need to get - all the time to give an immediate comment on topical issues. There is a tendency for us all to react immediately rather than saying we should examine the real issues and stories behind the headlines. It would be appreciated if members of parliament, whether they be Members of the European Parliament or otherwise, had a small confessional in which to hide every so often to enable them to reflect deeper on these issues.

We are at a very critical stage in the European Union. We are at a deep juncture where issues of the economic crisis, jobs crisis, food security and climate change are coming down the track like the train. Therefore, we need a stronger Europe and we need national parliaments to be engaged at the outset and not to be criticising at the conclusion.

Ms Nessa Childers, MEP

It is always more difficult to be the last person to speak because earlier speakers have covered some of the points I wished to make, which in itself is significant. The three MEPs present cover the agriculture and environment committees, which will be important in terms of the interests of the Irish State. We probably need to adopt systems to more carefully work the new post-Lisbon treaty scenario and there is not a great deal of time to do that. All of us will have to turn the ship around and put in new software, as it were, metaphorically speaking, to get the system off the ground. That will have to be done.

On a point of detail in terms of scrutiny, President Barroso issued a letter to national parliaments on the adoption of the treaty last year stating that the month of August would be taken into account in terms of the eight-week deadlines being determined for comment on draft questions. The Commission is taking into account parliamentary recesses. As our recess is longer than many of our sister parliaments across Europe, is there a potential for us to miss important deadlines? That is the type of issue we need to examine. Do we have the necessary resources to deal with the workload that emerges from Brussels? Ms McGuinness mentioned the issues that are coming down the track like a train, which we must ensure do not roll over us. We will have to put down new tracks, if necessary.

I understand the Netherlands has tracking software for legislation coming through the European Parliament and in that way it is aware of legislation with which it will have to deal. Do we need to examine the putting in place of such technology?

There is the yellow card system. Should we have a system in place to provide for the scenario whereby if eight other national parliaments are concerned about an item of legislation, they have to explore the potential of developing a tight network of national parliaments who share similar political and economic interests to those of Ireland. This is also an issue for a national parliament to be engaged at that level.

The Lisbon treaty bestows new powers on national parliaments, not on Governments, Ministers or committees. Therefore, is there potential for the entire Oireachtas to be involved in that respect? In terms of, for instance, ministerial dominance of a political party, perhaps that could be changed or is there a potential to exploit the Lisbon treaty to assert once again the authority of the entire Oireachtas?

In terms of the role of MEPs, we want to be as involved as much as possible in making the initiative work. How can we attend and contribute positively to as many meetings as possible? This is a constituency week. Could a means be found for us to attend virtual meetings? Does the technology to provide for that exist in this building? I have asked that question previously but I am not sure that I received a definite answer. If MEPs are to be present and to be involved, some of these technology issues will have to be examined because we cannot be everywhere we are supposed to be and be here all the time. We have to travel five out of every six weeks of the term.

Ms McGuinness mentioned the issue of lobby groups, which is very important in Brussels and here. We need to examine where lobby groups will feature in this process. Will their work be transparent? At present there is insufficient transparency around their work, their interests or even the matter of who they are. I congratulate the committee on having this meeting. The next time we meet some progress will need to have been made on these issues if we are to function correctly.

Chairman

I note Deputies Costello, Perry and Michael Kitt are offering and I call Deputy Costello.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the MEPs for coming along to this meeting and giving us their valuable views. We would like to learn as much as we can from them. They have been dealing with the European institutions and the European Parliament is one of those institutions. As a small national Parliament with two respective committees, the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, it is difficult for us to get through the workload from Europe. We would be interested to know how the MEPs prioritise issues. They deal with the workload coming from Europe all the time and I am sure they create some of it as well. Do they have some form of streamline, fast-tracking mechanism whereby they can identify issues that are of importance, select, prioritise and deal with them? Could they outline how the committees of the European Parliament operate? We have two committees that deal with European affairs and there are other committees of the Houses. We could examine a sharing of the burden of workload from Europe in that an agricultural matter could be dealt with by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and a justice matter could be dealt with by the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. I would like to know how the MEPs deal with regulations, directives, draft documents and communications? Do they have an input into the annual work programme prior to it being drafted? Are they able to intervene on the group and make suggestions to the Commission? How does that process operate? It would be interesting for us to hear how they deal with these matters.

The MEPs mentioned resources, which we certainly need. They might indicate what level of resources they have for dealing with legislative proposals, policy documents and communications? What types of mechanisms are in place? We will have a system whereby national parliaments will have to operate collectively to a degree if we are to operate the subsidiarity principle. States have very different abilities to respond with regard to standardisation of systems, equipment and so on. Do the delegates have standardised systems? Ms Childers spoke about having virtual meetings. Moving between Strasbourg, Brussels and everywhere else in their constituencies as they do, have MEPs managed to put together any virtual systems in order to communicate without actually being together in the one place? Are there any plans for that? Is there any possibility of assistance from the European Union institutions to ensure there is a level playing field and that all parliaments have the necessary resources, equipment and systems in order to be accessible, one to another? Is there any such system in Europe the delegates might suggest? COSAC is in operation but very much on an informal basis.

I refer to meetings. We are very anxious to have MEPs involved as much as possible on European matters. As Ms Childers noted, the fora are limited and we do not have much of a forum to discuss these matters in our own Parliament. Might the delegates be able to come along to any type of regular meetings or synchronisation of our mutual activities, so that there would be a guaranteed one or two days a month when MEPs could be present? We could deal with and prioritise the important issues on which we would want to share information?

Deputy John Perry

I welcome Ms McGuinness, Mr. Kelly and Ms Childers. I refer first to the sad news of the death of Senator Kieran Phelan. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, I can testify he was a very effective member of that committee. On behalf of the committee I extend my sympathy to all his extended family. It is very sad news. He was an outstanding contributor.

This is a very important meeting to consider the role of national parliaments in light of the enhanced powers given to Dáil Éireann after the Lisbon treaty. We are very much aware of the difficulty there was in getting the treaty ratified. Since we joined the EU more than 4,000 pieces of legislation have emanated from Europe, 98% of which have been transposed into Irish law. In many ways the big difficulty is that there is a perception that enhanced powers have brought about meaningful debate.

During the great debate in the lead up to the referendum there was a massive responsibility on all of us to ensure that we do not fall short again and allow a democratic deficit. As elected Members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann we must work very much as a team. During the significant debate that took place many people were cynical about statutory instruments which are transposed into Irish law without debate. Their role is controversial. I chaired a meeting yesterday with Leitrim County Council regarding the 1975 directive on waste water when the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland was in default. That continues to have a massive impact on the Government's implementation of that 35 year old directive. It is appalling that only now is the directive impacting in such a way as to prevent the development of one-off housing in all of County Leitrim, practically all of County Sligo and many other regions.

When we consider the enhanced role of the Oireachtas and that more than 500 pieces of legislation leave Europe, we can be encouraged by the fact that the lead-in period of directives is two years. Prior to the Lisbon treaty they were never debated or discussed and the Minister of the day signed the relevant statutory instruments. The Department has an advice note on the impact of statutory instruments and we now hope it will be circulated. Would it be of advantage to MEPs to be circulated with the impact assessment of an SI? I believe it should be circulated although currently it is not. The 2002 Act was upgraded in 2007 and has been enhanced now by the 2009 Act. One can talk about these enhanced powers but how do the delegates believe the 2009 Act is being operated? I believe there is room to utilise the existing Act in full. We can become preoccupied with creating new powers rather than using those we have.

The issue of lobby groups was raised and Ms McGuinness made a point about the 80:20 principle. There are 500 pieces of legislation coming in and many directives. As Chairman of the committee on European scrutiny it is my view that many directives affect eastern bloc countries and have no relevance to Ireland. We should and must be more selective. I greatly compliment the fantastic resources and the team of civil servants who work on the committee on European scrutiny. Since I took over that job I am aware of the level of research, legal advice and documentation of all reports circulated to every MEP. I am very much encouraged by the capability and level of effectiveness of the research and on-line scrutiny. Even prior to the subsidiarity checks there were a number of pilots which were very effective. Subsidiarity and proportionality are very important and it is important we deal decisively with the red card issue. Having attended a number of meetings of COSAC I believe this will not be a massive issue. Mr. John Hamilton has attended Leinster House on numerous occasions. How do the delegates find that office in its work? Is there much exchange with between them and it?

The monthly meetings with Irish MEPs and European sectoral committees are very important. That was mentioned in regard to the constituency week meetings held by MEPs. If there were a request from the joint bloc of MEPs to be facilitated within the scrutiny role of committees, I am certain it would be very easy to facilitate that. It would be pushing an open door. I would welcome more engagement from MEPs in attending meetings. I know it is difficult but co-ordination with the secretariat during a week Irish MEPs are in Ireland should be facilitated in every way. The role of the MEP is very much interlinked with the national parliament and their views should be listened to and taken on board.

The delegates might consider the role of the sectoral committees. We get many directives and send them to other committees for review and return within a certain timeframe. This is especially the case with agricultural directives. There are 14 Departments. Responsibility for justice and home affairs is a different matter. Perhaps the delegates might comment on these fields within the European Parliament as well as on Eurojust and Europol, in light of the enormous amount of legislation coming through. That is a big area and has a certain remit due to our Constitution. It is mandatory that the legislation be agreed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann before it can be enacted.

Do the delegates believe that before Ministers represent the Government at European Council meetings they should come to the sectoral committees and report, not only to the Members of Dáil Éireann or to the joint committees on European scrutiny and European affairs but to MEPs? That would allow the representatives in Europe to be fully briefed on the Irish position and they could report afterwards. Do they feel that might assist them in their work?

I refer to the promotion of information on Europe. Some 50,000 visitors come to Leinster House every year. What would the delegates think of having a European office or information kiosk here in Parliament? There is a very effective office in Molesworth Street but many of our visitors do not make the necessary connection. There are some 17,000 visitors to the European office but we are missing a huge opportunity by not having information available in this building. Do the MEPs agree that information on them should be available in this building? Perhaps they might comment on the issue. Have the MEPs any involvement at the Green Paper stage with regard to the impact assessment or transpositions? There are video conferencing facilities in Leinster House so would there be merit in MEPs having that facility afforded to them in order to have an exchange on issues in light of their significant workload?

The big issue concerns the difficulties in the perception of Europe and accountability with regard to statutory instruments. The Minister appears to have significant discretionary powers in signing statutory instruments. This can lead to difficulty regarding controversial directives. We can invite vested interests to the committee to speak on controversial directives so would the MEPs have an interest in bringing about more interaction with Parliament? Is there merit in more interaction between committees of this House and Brussels? It may happen occasionally but is there merit in having more interaction between the European Parliament and committee members in formal proceedings?

The joint sub-committee went into private session at 10.42 a.m. and resumed in public session at 10.45 a.m.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

I welcome the MEPs and would like to know how the committee system works in the European Parliament. As members know we have many committees here and we try to have debates in the Dáil and Seanad on relevant issues, although we are not always successful. What are the thoughts of the witnesses on that?

People often speak about the remoteness of Europe and we heard Deputy Perry's comments on the waste water directive, which was discussed yesterday. This takes in the issue in Leitrim and the building of a single rural house. These issues we deal with on the ground are very important. I was interested in Ms Childers's comments on teleconferencing and virtual meetings, which came into focus when the ash plumes affected travel. That should be followed up. We can do it with hospitals and the HSE and old health boards were doing it for years.

I put the issue of the Council of Europe and the rapporteur system to Mr. John Bruton when he came here. The Council of Europe seems to have the time to debate issues in committees and in full plenary session. Are there issues in the European Parliament that are like the Council of Europe or what is the relationship with the Council? As well as the committees dealing with European affairs and European scrutiny, the foreign affairs committee has discussed issues very relevant to the European Parliament. MEPs have tried to deal with interested parties and I would like the views of the witnesses on this.

People often say that every other country delays directives or fights hard to change them. We are often perceived as being the good boys and girls of Europe in that we take everything thrown at us. We should make the case that we are involved at the start of a drafting stage, consider the directives and make changes where possible. We have been told that this would not happen if we were in France or Italy, as they would get around the issue somehow.

There are some directives, particularly in the agricultural area, which have been hanging around for years. I will not even mention them because if I did, we might cause more difficulty for Irish farmers. The idea arises often that we must apply every directive to the letter of the law. The classic example was the turf cutting directive, which rural MEPs would know about. We got a derogation for ten years and now an interdepartmental report has been completed. The Minister must bring proposals to Government on the matter. I welcome the witnesses.

Chairman

We will hear responses from the witnesses and come back for supplementary questions.

Ms Nessa Childers, MEP

I am a new MEP and in many ways I am emblematic of the sheer mass of complexity involved in our work. Deputy Perry raised many questions and I am unable to answer all of them. It took many weeks for me to grasp what was going on in the Parliament and I still have not fully grasped it. We are right in the middle of the Lisbon treaty coming into effect, and not without conflict in the Parliament and between the institutions. It is possible that there will be conflict in the Oireachtas between Members, political groups and MEPs and we should look to avoid it. We must consider what could happen and avoid such pitfalls.

I can answer some questions. With regard to legislation, as MEPs we can provide focus. Someone mentioned how legislation might affect Ireland more than eastern European nations and vice versa. As an MEP, I have needed to focus on where I can be effective, tabling amendments, etc. Many of these matters relate to serious national issues.

We cannot continue derogating from legislation, for example, on waste water. What usually occurs is that we seem to procrastinate for so long that something comes down the line and a crisis emerges. Surely the new system should be designed to prevent this type of situation occurring. It should concentrate everyone's mind on the need to obtain more funds at a national level to implement directives on, for example, waste water and water in general, neither of which are issues we can avoid.

Regarding virtual technology, having an office in the Oireachtas as opposed to Molesworth Street alone would be a good idea. An office in Leinster House is necessary, but where would it be and is there any room for it in a physical sense?

When the question of foreign affairs arose, the permanent representative to Brussels came to mind. I am unsure as to whether it would be possible, but could a member of the permanent representation attend the committee's next meeting? The permanent representative is a crucial link between us and legislation. We need to have our act together where foreign affairs are concerned, but different political groups have different attitudes to what the EU is doing at that level. A great deal of conflict still surrounds the European External Action Service, EEAS, and the way in which it is developing. The process is ongoing and has not been resolved. There are conflicts between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. These issues have solutions, but we must focus on one matter at a time and prioritise what we need to do.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

I came to this meeting focused on the implementation of and reaction to the Lisbon treaty. Obviously, Deputies and Senators have a wider interest in how we work. This is welcome, as none of us might understand how the other group works.

Deputy Costello posed a number of detailed questions, some of which I will try to answer. Regarding assistance from the EU to level the playing field, we have a resource in the form of the Commission and Parliament offices, which are just down the road. Both offices have an obligation to be more proactive where Members of the Houses and the European Parliament are concerned. Perhaps the committee could consider how those offices' resources could be mobilised instead of seeking more resources at a time when we are asking everyone else to use less.

I will be blunt about the idea of MEPs attending meetings. I will attend meetings that I believe will be effective and have outcomes. I am not keen on the idea of meeting for meeting's sake. If a meeting was going to be useful, I would happily feed into it, as I am doing today, if I have specialist knowledge. I would not discuss foreign affairs, but I would discuss food policy, environmental issues and agriculture. I say "Yes" to the idea.

As to the workload, the problem the European Parliament must address is that the Commission has greater staffing resources than it does in terms of advisers, specialists and so on. We have held informal talks on the matter. We must trust, which is a word we all like to use, and work with the Commission or fight it where we believe there is a fight. The European Parliament does not have the Commission's weight of resources or expertise. Much of our work goes through committees and then into political groups, following which there are outcomes in terms of votes.

Deputy Perry asked about the meetings I have addressed. The idea of a European office in Leinster House is a good one. I do not know this building well, as I do not visit it often, but having an office here would integrate us into the national system more. Having sectoral committees to deal with specific legislation is also a good idea, in that their opinions could feed into this committee's work.

I like the notion of statutory instruments being circulated to MEPs and that we would have the time to read them. These are practical issues. The tragedy of new technology is that everyone who sends one an e-mail expects one to read the entire 90 pages.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

And reply that minute.

Ms Nessa Childers, MEP

We sometimes receive 300 per day.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

Yes. Not many politicians like the idea of a study on how to work more effectively. We work as individuals because we must, but everyone has different ways of doing it. There is always a better way of working and we must find it, otherwise there will be problems. Complex legislation like the recast of the WEEE directive, the REACH directive on chemicals, the hazardous substance directive with which I am dealing and on which Ms Childers is working as a member of the environment committee, almost require one to have a masters in, for example, chemistry. Alternatively, one must know with whom to speak about the matter. If we do not get legislation right, there will be problems in its implementation. For this reason, engaging in the process at the start and acquiring the correct expertise is crucial.

I have a different take on the remoteness of Europe. We play to the notion too much, as Europe is not remote. The first programme I did on "Ear to the Ground" in 1993 was about the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which stemmed from a European initiative. It now affects industry and everyone else. The Food Safety Authority, FSA, which has safeguarded the Irish food industry as an export industry, came from the EU. The Commissioner at the time was David Byrne. Sometimes, there is a danger of translating pub talk into parliamentary talk and we should resist doing so. Granted, this does not always apply, as the pub talk is sometimes right, but when people say that one can do anything one likes in France, I am always keen to ask them for proof instead of just accepting it as being the case.

Sometimes, food and agriculture issues are the most controversial. Ireland had a dioxin scare and we welcome the Minister's recent announcement about the re-opening of the market for pork in China. The food industry and farmers should be and are to the fore in wanting to implement the best in regulation to safeguard their reputations, industry and jobs. If we view directives as being a great insurance policy for everything we do, not an imposition, there would not be so much negative pub talk. Sometimes, the Commission comes up with some plumpers and we need to criticise them, but we have moved on from the Ganleyisation of the EU. People are in a more mature state where the EU is concerned.

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

If Ms Childers is new to the European Parliament, I am new to politics. It has been a steep learning curve, but that is to be expected and we are learning as quickly as we can and keeping ahead of the game.

A few points were interesting. Ms McGuinness referred to lobby groups, a situation I have found intriguing. A variety of lobby groups, ambassadors, people dealing with health issues, trade unions and so forth want to meet us and we try to fit them all in. Sometimes, one wonders who is paying them. Recently, seven people came from Ireland to meet individual MEPs while a further three or four could not make the trip. One wonders who pays their wages. Two people would have done just as well as seven. This situation might be considered from the point of view of its effectiveness and value.

The European Parliament contains 20 formal committees. Each parliamentarian is a full member of one committee and one other sub-committee. Our group has divided the committees and tried to cover the most important. Obviously, two members of the same party are not on the same committee. I am on the regional committee and the education and culture committee, which also comprises sporting issues. I took on the latter because sport was to become a competence after the passing of the Lisbon treaty, which I had expected. I also follow the ITRE committee, which deals with renewable energy and climate change.

Overall, the committees work reasonably well. There will be people from different groups on the committee and reports come before them. There is a rapporteur and a shadow from one's own group who scrutinises everything to decide on an approach. Every word is scrutinised and debated and a position arrived at. It works well, a lot of good work has been done. My impression of MEPs is that the vast majority are committed. I am sure the same is the case in the Dáil - we hear about those who are not committed but the vast majority are. If we look at the votes, the numbers are above 600, indicating a commitment.

As for coming here once a month, it would be nice but I do not think it is possible, for me personally anyway. I would not mind if it was divided up according to the committees we are actually dealing with but not in a general sense. I fly out at 6.30 a.m. on Monday morning, meaning I come to Dublin on Sunday night, getting up at 4.30 a.m. to fly out at 6.30 a.m. and I come back on Thursday night. I am expected to cover the constituency at the weekend. To appear here today, I came up last night, meaning I have used almost two days. If the committee could divide attendance so there is a rotation, it might be possible but it would have to be specific.

The permanent representation is important and does a good job. We have had some very good briefings, particularly on agriculture and fisheries. A lot of good preparatory work has been done on CAP reform that is coming up. There is also a facility for people to go on-line and make their own representations. Many people are prepared to comment negatively but when the opportunity comes to submit an opinion, they do not take it.

The Commission is very helpful, it has a lot of expertise. When the globalisation fund was established, we had a meeting in Dell and I was shocked at the lack of knowledge about it and by the lack of consultation with the workers, who appeared to be rudderless. Something needed to be done. It was the same when the Waterford Crystal workers were made redundant. I said I would bring members from the Commission who would know exactly what was going on and what should happen. Two came over, one from Denmark and one connected to Ireland, and that meeting achieved more than had been achieved in the previous six months. The Dell workers got advice straight from the horse's mouth. The workers were happy and the Commission was impressed by the quality of the workforce. The Commission is there to help.

I have been appointed rapporteur for the International Fund for Ireland. It is to be established on a legal basis and the Parliament will vote on that in June. The Commission has been helpful in this area as well, particularly on the legal side.

Europe is working well. I do not understand the attitude that Europe is some big, bad wolf trying to take all our powers. It is not a federal state, it is an amalgam where countries come together, giving certain powers to the European Union in everyone's overall interest. It has no interest in being re-elected like a government, because everyone is elected on their own individual basis. It tries to pool resources for the benefit of all, there is no desire to take over powers for the sake of it. Any powers it has have been willingly given to it by the member states and that is how it will continue.

The Lisbon treaty allows for greater powers for the European Parliament. The gap between the institutions and the citizens is being addressed, particularly through better communications with the Parliament. This is part of that ongoing process and it is in everyone's interests that it works as effectively as possible.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I thank the three MEPs for coming. They displayed real common sense in their contributions. We are well represented by the three of them and by the MEPs who could not come. Each of them had a strong sense that they had come to grips with the shortcomings and the advantages of Europe and how to work the system. That is exactly what we wanted to hear. Seán Kelly is right that we were used to depicting Europe as a big, bad wolf. That is daft, we are all on the one side. Each of their contributions was refreshing.

I do not know of an office here. Deputy Perry has raised this point on several occasions.

Deputy John Perry

I am not seeking an office, simply an information kiosk.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Perhaps. Each of us is an information kiosk ourselves; that is what we should aim to be. I am worried about the volcanic ash. The MEPs do not seem worried about how they get to and fro.

Ms Nessa Childers, MEP

We do have worries.

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

Every time, I have been caught. Every time I am on my way to the airport, the ash strikes.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

We talk about being remote, but surely it is clearly demonstrated by that. Hopefully they are coming forward with a cure for it so we will be able to get around it. Perhaps we could get a little boat and off the MEPs would go every time Europe is on. I am happy with what the representatives have said about how they are coming to grips with Europe and how they are playing their role through the committee system. I thank the Chairman for giving us the opportunity to welcome our MEPs and to listen to them. I hope we see them again.

Deputy Joe Costello

Do the MEPs have any input into the Commission's work programme before it is drawn up? If issues are debated at committee, how are they brought on to the floor at plenary sessions? What is the mechanism if the major issues are debated in the sectoral committees? Do they move to the floor during plenary sessions or are they dealt with through the political parties afterwards?

Deputy John Perry

The point about support from the Commission is reassuring in the case of Dell and the job losses there. It is good for the Parliament, the Commission and everyone involved because it shows the beneficial roles they have for Ireland. I compliment Mr. Seán Kelly for his critical involvement there.

The role of rapporteur doing specialised reports that benefit Ireland in particular areas is welcome. Ms Childers mentioned making functions in the European Parliament and Dáil Éireann more mainstream and that is very important.

Ms McGuinness mentioned the directives that are good for Ireland and it is important that we should see them. They should not be seen as draconian, anti-competitive or anti-business, particularly in the food sector. They serve to enhance the reputation of Ireland and I welcome the idea of changing the perception of directives. They should be seen as instruments that enhance our reputation as a country of excellence.

Chairman

Under the Lisbon treaty, the role of the European Parliament has been enhanced, as has happened following a number of treaties. Is there a concern in the European Parliament that the enhanced role of national parliaments could dilute that or become a point of conflict, or do both work hand in hand as a counter-balance to the European Commission? I would be interested to hear the views of the witnesses on that.

I strongly believe that we need to integrate our MEPS more deeply in the work of the Oireachtas. The question is how this happens. I am very strongly of the view that we need to change how we operate in these Houses, not just to respond to the challenges we face at a European level but for our own sakes because we are not efficient in how we do our business here. Particularly in the context of the new scrutiny role for national parliaments we should have a committee week as there is in the European Parliament. It should not be seen as a week off because it would involve the Dáil and Seanad sitting in committee. Such a week could coincide with the MEP constituency week, although I know it would not be possible for them to spend that week in Leinster House every month.

If a pertinent important legislative proposal came from the European Commission, for example, the review of the Common Agricultural Policy, rather than the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food meeting once a week on an ad hoc basis and calling witnesses before it, we would have an intensive set of meetings in a week to suit the relevant MEPs who are members of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee to have meaningful input into it. It might happen only once a year or once every six months, but I believe the MEPs would be prepared to make that special effort and it would greatly benefit the Oireachtas. Let us face it; nobody really knows what will happen with the Common Agricultural Policy review as it is framed by the European Commission. It is one example but the same could be applied to virtually every committee because there is a shadow committee in the European Parliament.

This ties in with Deputy Perry's point on an information kiosk. I would go a step further. Many national parliaments in the European Union have offices to facilitate MEPs. Irish MEPs come to Ireland to do their constituency work and they need access to the very basics of computers, telephones and privacy to respond to and deal with constituents. If there were such a facility in Leinster House it would make it far more attractive for MEPs to sacrifice a day or two of their constituency week and spend it here engaging with sectoral committees and dealing with issues of priority, from the Parliament's view and from the national perspective, to enhance their role and work in the European Parliament. This is very important and we need to prioritise it.

As we form a view on how we will reform the workings of these Houses, we need to reflect the needs and priorities of the MEPs because we must start working together in a more integrated fashion. I will be interested to hear the views of the witnesses on this.

Ms Nessa Childers, MEP

This is an excellent example of how we could quite quickly proceed to forming a committee which mirrors the way the European Parliament works. It would sit a certain number of times a year to discuss sectoral issues into which we input in a focused manner.

I have begun to guess at where conflict with the Oireachtas might occur, which is where the local nature of national Irish politics conflicts with European directives. Perhaps there could be conflict between the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and the MEPs, but I do not know. I hope it does not happen, although conflict can sometimes be important to debate.

The Chairman's suggestion on committees is good and I do not see why it could not be implemented quickly enough if the will was there. It would be a good idea.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

We feed into the 2020 strategy or the work programme through political groups and we can propose amendments in the Chamber. Initially, the 2020 strategy had no mention of agriculture but the Parliament was not pleased and now it is in there.

Deputy Joe Costello

Do MEPs have an input into the Commission prior to a proposal being drafted? Can the political groups send a manifesto or policy items they would like included in the draft to the Commission prior to it being published?

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

As I understand it there is no prohibition to input into any of the processes, including agriculture which has been mentioned frequently, and input is welcomed. The real question is whether it is taken on board, and if it is not we must ask how that can be changed. When we engage politically with the Commission we make suggestions, but it initiates legislation. On agriculture, we are going through a long talking process and there is much shadow-boxing. We listen to the Commissioner state very little because he does not want to commit. However, the Commission will commit its first thoughts to paper by the autumn and at that stage the real battles will begin.

There are two types of approaches to get issues onto the floor of the Parliament. If it is with regard to a directive we do the normal thing at committee; we amend, we vote, it goes to the main plenary for further amendment and the House votes on it. Issues such as the Mercosur talks or other bilateral trade agreements are raised by way of motion or resolution. There is too little debate in Ireland on such matters because they are quite serious and while there are benefits there are certainly losses from an agricultural point of view. The motions or resolutions must go to the Presidency to be accepted. I wanted to table an oral question in the previous session on the Mercosur issue. It did not get enough support at the Conference of Presidents so it has not happened but we will try again. What goes on is normal political jousting to try to raise issues. What I have described is the most formal way to raise matters, but it can also be done through a one minute speech which although useful may not be as effective as formal questions.

With regard to the Chairman's comments on integrating MEPs more, this meeting is a very positive experience but only three of the 12 of us were in a position to attend. If we are to do this we must ensure people on both sides will take part. Let us look at how it might be done. We have only approximately four constituency weeks a year; it is not one week every month. However, if the European Parliament were to review its work methods it could be possible. Dare I say that if women ran it, it might happen because I am quite conscious of trying to be at home when I am not at work. I do most of my work when I am at home but that is a side remark.

Last night, I was interested to hear mention in the Queen's speech of the Equitable Life Bill. Not many people will realise that I chaired a committee of inquiry of the European Parliament into Equitable Life, which collapsed and left thousands of Irish policy holders out of pocket. Some of the work we did in 2005 is now impacting on UK legislation and we will watch that. It all knits together.

We need lobby groups because they have expertise that we do not. Our voters must trust and understand that we use our judgment on how we are lobbied and what they tell us. We need very good lobby groups that give us clarity of information which we can take on board.

With regard to the issue of dealing only with directives that are of importance to Ireland, an observation was made that at some Council meetings, whether on finance, the environment or agriculture, the Minister from a member state such as Ireland might be tempted not to remain at a meeting because the issue on the agenda is not of relevance to us. That is not something I think is a good idea if one is trying to win friends and have influence. Sometimes when I am at a meeting where the discussion is on southern Mediterranean fruits which we do not and cannot grow, there is a temptation to leave. However, if I do not show support for my colleagues on these issues they will not be as willing to show support for me on grassland issues about which I am concerned. I ask people to be cautious about ignoring matters that are not relevant. We need to be aware of them. Everything works on the basis of networks, which are informal and therefore hard to describe.

Yesterday, I visited St. Mary's school in Drogheda. The transition year students at that school were in Strasbourg for two days last week. They were incredible young lads. It would do one good to hear about their understanding of Europe, their desire to know more and their engagement with it. It is through the schools that we will ultimately make progress eventually.

Chairman

Ms McGuinness will be pleased to know that is Ronan's alma mater.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

I was wise to mention it. It was really impressive.

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

I will be brief. First, there was a question about whether there would be a conflict between national parliaments and the European Parliament. If there is, it would be a good thing because every piece of legislation has to be assessed and analysed, and eventually amended before it comes into force here. The sooner any points of conflict are identified the better. I do not see it as a conflict but rather as a form of engagement and an opportunity to identify any obstacles that are in the way and getting them resolved. That is important.

The recent controversy about Greece, the scrutiny of budgets and so forth is again something to be welcomed, in the sense that if one signs up to a club one has to take the good and bad, and have give and take. That can be helpful in the overall context of ensuring that the international crisis which we have at the current time, which was caused by dishonesty, in particular in Greece, will not happen in the future. It is always good to have somebody to examine something and ask if a country is complying with the overall targets which it said it would. It does not mean Europe will interfere with everything; it is not. From the point of view of the security of the European Union and the euro it is important that everybody who signs up to something agrees to it. We all have to do that, no matter what club we are involved in.

On committee weeks, we have only four in the year.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

They are constituency weeks.

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

I apologise; they are constituency weeks. We have four and could do with more. It would be far easier to communicate with our citizens, which is the phrase which is constantly used in Europe, and engage, especially following the result of the Lisbon treaty. It is a good idea. Deputy Perry's thoughts about an information kiosk in the Parliament is very good. Deputy O'Rourke is one so we could do with another to complement her.

Chairman

Senator Terry Leyden.

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

It is a good idea for those in the Dáil and would work well. Some lobby groups are very good. The IFA would probably be considered a lobby group, but it is far more than that. There are others who are sent out to lobby for certain things.

Deputy John Perry

Would Mr. Kelly agree that there should be a register of lobbyists?

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

I agree.

Deputy John Perry

If there was a procedure for registering them one would know exactly who is coming and who he or she represents.

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

That is a very good point. Rather than knocking at my door, ringing me or sending e-mails-----

Deputy John Perry

Ministers or Senators.

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

We get them from all over the world about this, that or the other. It is a very good point with which I agree. Overall, this is a good initial meeting. It is good to engage. I thank the Chairman, Deputy Creighton, in particular. She has been very diligent at attending meetings in Europe. I met her a few times. She did not tell me anything about her romantic life or anything like that. We will discover all that in due course.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

If I may give an example of something which is coming down the tracks which the committee would want to watch, it is not a very sexy subject but the soils directive has caused great controversy in the environment committee in the past and between and within member states. For example, Germany is against it because it has very good legislation on soil protection. I am not sure how Ireland stacks up in terms of national legislation on this issue, but it is a classic case where national parliaments will examine the issue under the new system and Ireland will have to decide whether it is with Germany, which has good legislation, or whether we need legislation. Thus far we have resisted the soils directive but soil is important in terms of carbon, etc. It could be a test case as to how Ireland will work it out and interact with us and national parliaments because there is a huge divide. The southern member states want it.

Deputy John Perry

Does Ms McGuinness see the soils directive as a breach of subsidiarity? Does it interfere with the role of national parliaments?

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

The Parliament will have to scrutinise what comes out of the directive. It did not happen under the last mandate but the new Commissioner is very determined to bring it forward. It is one which the Parliament could and should watch.

Deputy John Perry

It is a Green Paper now.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

It is in his work programme for his term. There are huge differences between member states on the committee about whether we need it. It is not just about agriculture; it also involves industry and the repatriation of soils where there is contamination, which is important. It is a major issue and could be one of the first which the Parliament will have to deal with. In principle, we all agree with soil protection. If we returned to this committee we would have to ask what Ireland has in terms of legislation on soil protection and if we needed more or better legislation in order that we can ensure that our soils are protected. It will be a battleground at the Council as well.

Chairman

It is interesting. It is very useful to get that information in advance. It is something which Deputy Perry, through the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, can pursue and perhaps initiate the process at an early stage as a test case, which is what we need.

Deputy Joe Costello

Mr. Kelly said he was briefed by the permanent representative. Could he tell us more about that? How often does it take place? What sort of briefings take place?

Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP

We had one prior to the Lisbon treaty last year. The permanent representative, Mr. Rory Montgomery, and his staff gave us a very good briefing on it. We had one on agriculture and one on fisheries.

Deputy Joe Costello

Was it at the request of MEPs or do they request briefings on the major issues which arise? How does it work?

Ms Nessa Childers, MEP

Before every plenary session we have written briefings from the permanent representative. I do not know what happened previously, but we have meetings with him every week we meet in Strasbourg.

Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP

The permanent representative has had better engagement in this term of Parliament, since Lisbon, than he had in the previous term. We receive written communications on the legislation on which we are voting. Sometimes it is excellent and other times it sits on the fence. The difficulty I sometimes have with the permanent representative is that he has the Government's line so we will not always agree with it. We have asked that we receive the information in time in order that one is not trying to analyse the voting list at the last minute and he has responded to that.

There has been a significant change around agriculture because we are defending a budget of €1.8 billion in transfers to the country. We have had very good engagement with officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll visited us and gave an excellent presentation on agriculture policy. I requested presentations on economic policy and environmental policy. I know about agriculture and am interested in other topics. They are responding. It is a resource which is in place. Compared with the first term in 2004, the engagement with the permanent representative is much deeper and more effective than it was in the past and officials are coming to meet us for a cup of coffee to discuss what is coming up. I welcome that. We appreciate what is done by all involved in Brussels. It does work and because they are watching everything at a different level to us it helps us to make informed decisions.

Chairman

That is very useful. The MEPs have raised a lot of issues which have not been raised before the committee. Their contribution today has been very useful to us and to the progression of our work. It is a pity that more members could not attend. There is a huge pull on the time and commitments of all of the MEPs. They meet groups and constituents and have their parliamentary work. It is very much appreciated that they took the time to meet us today. We found it very useful. I hope the MEPs also found it useful. I hope we will have an opportunity to have this kind of interface again, possibly on a more regular and structured basis.

The joint sub-committee went into private session at 11.30 a.m. and adjourned at 11.35 a.m. sine die.