Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY debate -
Tuesday, 1 Dec 2009

Report on EU Developments: Discussion with Department of Foreign Affairs.

On behalf of the committee I welcome the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. David Cooney, to discuss the Department's six monthly report for January to June 2009. I welcome him and congratulate him on his appointment. I welcome Mr. Peter Gunning, the director general of the EU division, Mr. Charles Sheehan, counsellor at the EU division, Mr. Peter Ryan, the European correspondent of the political division, and Mr. Stephen Ryan, assistant principal of the EU division.

Before we begin I would like to congratulate Máire Geoghegan-Quinn on her appointment to the important portfolio of research and innovation. I wish her well and congratulate her for getting such a prestigious appointment. I invite her at the first possible opportunity to come before this committee.

Before we begin, I wish to draw attention the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege, but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. 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 House, or an official by name or in such as a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. David Cooney

I thank the Chairman and members for giving me the opportunity to appear before the committee on this historic day for Ireland and the European Union to discuss these important matters. I would like to add my congratulations and those of all in the Department of Foreign Affairs to Máire Geoghegan-Quinn on her appointment. Many of us have had the privilege of working with her during her time as a Minister. I am confident she will do a very good job.

The entry into force today of the Lisbon treaty marks the beginning of a new and long awaited phase in the Union's development. As of today, the EU has the potential to become a more efficient, effective and democratic organisation. One of the most important ways in which the Lisbon treaty has made the European Union more democratic is through the enhanced role it provides for national parliaments. This was a point the Minister for Foreign Affairs underlined when he met last year with this committee, sitting in joint session with the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

With the treaty in force we are opening a new chapter in the role of the Oireachtas regarding the European Union. I will return to this point later, along with other issues concerning the implementation of the treaty. With the permission of the Chairman, however, I would first like to deal with the report of the Department of the Foreign Affairs to the Houses of the Oireachtas on developments in the European Union between January and June 2009. This report deals with developments during the Presidency of the Czech Republic. It offers a concise summary of the main developments during that period and, if desired, I will do my best to answer any questions on it.

As the report reveals, the first six months of this year presented significant challenges for the Union, not least the ongoing economic crisis, the uncertainty over the future of the Lisbon treaty and the troubled international horizon. Credit must go to the Czech Republic that so much was achieved, notwithstanding the fall of the Czech Government and its replacement by an interim executive during the final weeks of the Presidency. The period also saw the election of a new European Parliament, with well contested elections for the 12 seats in this jurisdiction.

For Ireland, however, the most important development during those six months was undoubtedly the European Council in June, at which the Government secured legal guarantees in regard to the Lisbon treaty, designed to respond to the public concerns raised in the first referendum. These guarantees provided the foundation for the campaign which culminated in the Irish people's decision to give the treaty a resounding endorsement in the October referendum.

The securing of these guarantees was the culmination of months of lobbying and persuasion by members of the Government and officials, as well as consultation with Opposition parties. This achievement would have been impossible without the solidarity and understanding of our EU partners and the advice and support of the Council secretariat. Nevertheless, such was the concern of partners to ensure that nothing be conceded which might constitute a reopening of the text of the treaty that negotiations went to the wire, with the Taoiseach personally reaching agreement with his colleagues after protracted discussions. I will not rehearse the content of the report but I would draw your attention to the significant developments in the enlargement agenda which have taken place since the publication of the report.

Following a compromise in the bilateral negotiations between Croatia and Slovenia, facilitated by the Union, it is now possible that if Croatia can meet all outstanding benchmarks in time, accession negotiations could be concluded next year. In addition, the Commission has recommended formally opening accession negotiations with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and is currently preparing its formal opinion on the applications of Iceland, Montenegro and Albania.

I turn now to the second item identified in the letter of invitation, namely, the implementation of the Lisbon treaty and its consequences for the national parliaments of the EU in the context of the Department of Foreign Affairs co-ordinating role. I propose to concentrate my remarks on the following three areas: the current state of play on implementation of the treaty; the new and enhanced role of national parliaments; and I will conclude by addressing some issues around Communicating Europe.

Preparatory work on the implementation of the Lisbon treaty has been moving ahead under the Swedish Presidency, which reported on progress to the October European Council. A good deal of this work is technical, dealing with rules of procedure, working structures and so on.

One of the important new steps is that under Lisbon, the European Council becomes formally an institution of the Union, with its own elected President. An important political decision was made by the European Council on 19 November when it elected the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman Van Rompuy, to be the first to occupy this office.

The European Council also agreed that Catherine Ashton, the EU Trade Commissioner, will be the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. As envisaged, she will also be Vice President of the Commission, dealing with external relations. Both of these new roles are designed to bring further coherence to the work of the EU, particularly in dealing with global problems.

Catherine Ashton will be supported in her high representative role by the important innovation of the European External Action Service. The October European Council endorsed a set of guidelines on the scope and structure of the European External Action Service. It will be for the new high representative to put the service on a formal footing, by proposing a Council decision on the EEAS parameters. This should be adopted at the latest by the end of April 2010.

Naturally we have been keen to ensure in the discussions that recruitment to the EEAS is transparent and merit-based and results in an EEAS that reflects the Union's diversity. Discussion on these and other treaty implementation issues is continuing in preparation for the December European Council.

An important democratic innovation in the Lisbon treaty which we look forward to seeing implemented is the Citizens' Initiative. This will give an opportunity to people around Europe to call for action on issues within EU competence. The Commission has now published a discussion document which highlights some practical issues, such as how the million signatures required can be properly collected and verified. The committee may be aware that the Citizens' Initiative is prioritised in the revised programme for Government. The Government is looking forward to early agreement on the mechanisms for the Citizens' Initiative so that this practical facilitation of the people's voice can be given effect.

I now turn to the role of national parliaments in EU business, an issue which is of particular concern to this committee. Article 12 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Lisbon treaty, states that "National Parliaments contribute to the good functioning of the Union". The newly-revised treaties provide for national parliaments to assume a number of different rights and responsibilities in various aspects of the Union's operation. These have been usefully summarised in the European Parliament's report on the development of the relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments under the Treaty of Lisbon. This report categorised the rights of national parliaments under three headings: the right to information — for instance on Commission Green and White Papers, on the Commission's annual legislative programme, on draft legislation and on the annual report of the Court of Auditors, all of which are to be sent directly to national parliaments at the same time as they are sent to the Council and European Parliament, but also on the evaluation of policies conducted in the area of freedom, security and justice, on proceedings of the Standing Committee on Internal Security, on proposals to amend the treaties, on applications for membership of the Union, on simplified treaty revisions, and on proposals for treaty supplementing measures; the right to active participation in the proper functioning of the Union, the so called "umbrella" provision, as well as in the control of Europol and Eurojust together with the European Parliament, and in conventions dealing with treaty changes; and the right to object to legislation not complying with the principle of subsidiarity, the so called "yellow card" or "orange card" procedure, to treaty changes in the simplified procedure, to measures of judicial cooperation in civil-law matters in the family law area, and to an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity by bringing an action before the Court of Justice.

However, the most powerful of the new rights accorded to national parliaments by the Lisbon treaty is the power of veto — the so called "red card" — now held by each national parliament or, in the case of Ireland, each House of the Oireachtas, over decisions by the European Council to move from special to ordinary legislative procedure for decision making in specific areas, the so-called general "passerelle” or bridging clause, decisions by the European Council to move from unanimity to qualified majority decision making in the common foreign and security policy area, and Council decisions concerning family law with cross-border implications.

Additionally, in the case of Ireland, the recent referendum approved an amendment to the Constitution which includes requirements for the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas before certain important EU-related decisions could be made.

The European Union Act 2009 gives effect to the relevant provisions of the Lisbon treaty and the amendment of the Constitution in the domestic law of the State, including the new powers of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Perhaps the most significant enhancement in the role of national parliaments is in regard to the principle of subsidiarity. The European Union Act sets out the legal basis on which each House of the Oireachtas can issue a reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission stating why it considers that an EU draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

Work has advanced at official level to ensure that the necessary administrative procedures are in place in good time to give effect to this system, in particular to ensure that the Oireachtas can meet the eight-week deadline set out for the provision of a reasoned opinion.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has recently written to all Departments asking that, in future, the information notes supplied to this committee should include material on subsidiarity issues where relevant. We have also asked Departments to alert this committee as soon as possible if there are grounds for believing that a proposal may contravene the principle of subsidiarity.

In view of the eight-week deadline under the Lisbon treaty, it will be essential that Departments respect the existing 20-day deadline for submission of information notes on proposed ED measures. This point has been underlined in our communications with the Departments concerned.

Given that the subsidiarity review can, in the majority of cases, only be triggered by the objection of a least one third of national parliaments, based on two votes per national parliament or, in Ireland's case, one vote for the Dáil and one for the Seanad, co-operation with other national parliaments will be of relevance to the operation of this procedure.

I am aware that the Ceann Comhairle has been invited by the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament to a meeting later this month of all national Speakers to discuss how national parliaments can best implement this and other Lisbon treaty provisions which involve national parliaments. These and other contacts in the COSAC framework will no doubt be useful in elaborating procedures.

In considering the enhanced role of national parliaments under the Lisbon treaty, I am conscious that there are broader issues in regard to democratic engagement with the European Union. The report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union was a significant and timely contribution to public discussion on issues surrounding Ireland's engagement with Europe.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, when appearing before the Joint Committee on European Affairs recently, made the point that this report was "particularly effective in reassessing and facilitating a more macro perspective on Ireland and the European Union and that relationship in the years to come". At that meeting, the Minister also mentioned his desire to develop a more strategic approach to EU affairs, which might include some of the areas covered by the sub-committee's report.

The Minister noted that many of the report's recommendations are for the Oireachtas to bring forward and indicated that he did not wish to prescribe how this should be done. His general concern, however, is that EU matters receive the prominence in national political life and discourse which they merit in light of their influence and far-reaching impact on this country.

Among the recommendations contained in the report is a proposal for a more formal system of consultation between Ministers and Oireachtas committees, both before and after Council meetings. As the committee is aware, the Minister for Foreign Affairs appears before the Joint Committee on European Affairs prior to each Council he attends. In the Dáil recently the Minister reaffirmed his view that this practice could usefully be followed by other Ministers with their respective sectoral committees. I believe that the necessary powers are in place already to allow this. Greater engagement by sectoral committees with the EU agenda would greatly assist in that mainstreaming and fulfil another recommendation made in the sub-committee's report. Ultimately, however, this is a matter for the committees and individual Ministers to determine.

The report also called for more discussion of EU matters by the Houses of the Oireachtas in plenary sessions. I know that a so-called state of the European Union debate has been mentioned as a possibility. I am confident that public opinion would consider this a positive development, although this is clearly a matter for the Oireachtas to decide upon. I have also noted the sub-committee's proposals on greater Oireachtas oversight of transposition of EU law, including the proposal that regulatory impact assessments be submitted to the House.

I wish to brief the committee on the Department's Communicating Europe initiative. The report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union was imbued with a strong sense of commitment to the task of informing the Irish people about the European Union. That is a task in which the Department of Foreign Affairs has long been engaged. The Department has operated a Communicating Europe programme for 15 years and the 2007 programme for Government included a specific commitment to support these efforts. This year, we developed a new communication action plan for this area of our work. As part of that plan we developed a new website highlighting the relevance of the EU for Irish people. We publicised this website extensively with strong, clear messages and provided funding to civil society groups for EU awareness activities, including Europe Day events. We advertised our funding scheme in the national newspapers in February. A total of 61 applications were received, a 50% increase on the number in 2008, and 40 applications were approved for partial or full funding.

The Department's Communicating Europe programme for 2009 was designed with a view to improving awareness and knowledge about Ireland's EU membership. Research commissioned by the Department pointed to a need for Government to address this issue on an ongoing and long-term basis. The eumatters.ie website provides easily accessible, reliable information about the EU that is relevant to people’s lives. The content is free of jargon and is interactive. In July, a publicity campaign around this website targeted groups identified in earlier research: 25 to 39 year olds, unskilled and skilled workers, and women. I believe we have learned much in the past year about communicating Europe and I believe we can learn more from the recent referendum campaign which will be very helpful in guiding and focusing our efforts in the future.

As the committee may recall, the Government commissioned comprehensive research following the referendum of June 2008. Using this research as a benchmark, the Department has now commissioned a smaller, cost-effective research project following the recent referendum. We hope this research will identify the factors that shaped voting decisions and the outcome of the recent referendum, measure the level of understanding of EU issues in general and the Lisbon treaty, and determine what forms and channels of communication were most effective during the campaign. The objective will be to draw lessons that can be applied to future efforts to communicate about Europe. These lessons are not exclusive to Ireland and the findings of this research will be shared with European partners.

Communicating Europe will continue to be accorded high priority by my Department. Our activities in the coming year will be informed by the research and by our experience over the past year. We believe we can achieve long-term results with a cost-effective programme.

I have confined my opening remarks to a brief outline of some major topics but I trust these remarks have been helpful as an initial contribution to our discussions. I look forward to our discussion.

I thank the Secretary General for a comprehensive overview. This is an historic day in view of the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. In light of the fact that the Department of Foreign Affairs is the co-ordinating Department for the current scrutiny system, I am pleased to note the immense commitment and, likewise, the responsibility of other Departments in view of the 20-day timeframe. Prior to ratification of the Lisbon treaty, a meaningful debate took place in the Dáil and Seanad. There is also the issue of the submission of information notes and concerns about breach of subsidiarity. Mr. John Hamilton does an excellent job on our behalf in Brussels.

With regard to the 20-day timeframe and given that officials may be in breach of subsidiarity, is there any way in which the timeframe can be reduced to cater for our concerns? Perhaps this is not the responsibility of the Secretary General but when initiatives are sent to other Departments for an opinion, the timeframe is not adhered to nor is the four to six weeks timeframe coming back from other committees. I realise the Secretary General has asked the Secretaries General of other Departments to deal decisively with any concerns. Given the issues raised in the so called yellow card, it is important to have a meaningful debate in the Dáil and Seanad with a short timespan.

I welcome the Secretary General, Mr. David Cooney, and his colleagues to the committee. I congratulate him on his prestigious appointment. I congratulate also Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn who has got a very important portfolio, research and innovation, which is very much part of our policies. It is a very appropriate appointment. Having served with her in Government as a Deputy and Minister of State, she has great abilities. She was a very effective Minister. Over the years I have found her to be decisive on issues and is the right person at the right time in the right place and I wish her every success. We are fortunate she made herself available for this onerous task. She brings a wealth of experience and prestige to that position.

I compliment the Secretary General and all his officials on their tremendous work in regard to the release of Fr. Michael Sinnott and Sharon Commins and her African colleague. It was a wonderful piece of work on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, and all the senior officials who, through negotiations, worked hard to secure the safe release, particularly of Fr. Sinnott. It took a good deal of work and much diplomacy. I am aware of the tremendous diplomatic service around the world which I have experienced at first hand.

Today, 1 December, is an historic day when, after all the work, the Lisbon reform treaty is being implemented and comes into force. It is fortunate that it has come into force before the general election in Britain and elsewhere and that it has become a reality. We can now move forward and are very fortunate to be in the centre of Europe. Speaking as a former Minister of State with responsibility for trade and marketing, we have nothing whatever to fear from being there as equal partners with the other EU member states.

In light of the financial position, has the Department considered the closure of embassies and possibly the opening of more strategic embassies? Is that an ongoing issue in the Department? I know we have a commitment to the other members of the European Parliament and I presume we must have an embassy in each of those countries. However, we have an embassy in Nigeria and other smaller embassies around the world, all of which are very important. In the new developing areas the position of embassies is crucial in regard to trade.

I know we have an embassy in the Islamic Republic of Iran because I was there. Again, this is a strategic location for trade in the future and it has enormous influence in that region. We have very good relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and it is one where I would not like to see any changes because of the potential for enormous trade with that region. We are not involved in global conflicts. Our country is an independent republic which has not been engaged in any type of colonialism. When I was in the region the work of the embassy was crucial in developing trade. Most of those countries have a relationship with the embassies, and through the embassies, with the traders and businesspeople who come to work in them. With our financial difficulties, there will be cuts in the Department but we must ensure we do not damage our trade relations by closing embassies in strategic locations.

I concur with the message of congratulations on the great work of the Department in those important crises that emerged in the past month.

Mr. David Cooney

I thank the Chairman and Senator Leyden for their kind remarks and for their congratulations on the work done by the Department. The work put in by a number officials on the kidnappings went far beyond what would be expected if one based one's judgment of public service on what one reads in the newspapers. People put in a huge effort over a sustained period and we are delighted at the safe return of the hostages.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister are fully committed to the work of the Oireachtas in terms of scrutiny oversight of EU business. We have already written to all Departments emphasising the need to meet the targets. I will follow that up on the basis of today's discussion and I will make the point both orally and in writing to Secretaries General that this deadline must be adhered to. It would be difficult to do it any earlier than 20 days in the circumstances. Resources are needed to do these things but the important thing is to meet the deadline, and in the committee's experience this is not universally the case. I will do my best personally to ensure it will be the case from now on. It is more important than ever in the new dispensation that applies after the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty.

Senator Leyden's views on the importance of embassies are shared by me, by everyone in the Department and, generally, across the Government. There have been proposals to close embassies and we are coming to the end of the budgetary negotiation process. I cannot pre-empt the statement of the Minister for Finance but considerable importance attaches to the work done by the embassies, not least in terms of driving economic recovery.

Almost universally, we have embassies in countries for three reasons, namely, trade, development and Irish community reasons. We do not have embassies to wield political influence in a part of the world. That is not our game and it is unlikely it would ever be. All of our embassies are focused on an issue of vital importance to Ireland. We constantly review our footprint. We need to reshape the structure of external representation to take account of the more limited resources. Our Department, like every other Department, will have its Vote cut and we must see if we can do things in a leaner way in some parts of the world. We want, however, to maintain the shape of our footprint and to keep it under review because trade is the number one priority if we want to see the country recover. The embassies have a role to play in that.

At the start of the year, the Minister established a new unit in the Department to liaise with our missions to counteract the negative publicity about the Irish economy, most of which can be traced back to stories printed at home. The rest of the world did not have it in for us, many of the stories were Irish but were magnified or distorted in the way they were portrayed abroad. We are fully on that case.

I welcome the delegation and congratulate Mr. Cooney on his appointment as Secretary General, and our new Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, and support the invitation of the Chairman for her to appear before the committee at an early stage.

This is an historic day, with the coming into force of the Lisbon treaty, after almost two years of debate in this country and two referenda. It is now a question of the implementation of the terms of that treaty.

My first question is about the new appointments and the new institution. I presume if there is to be a new institution there will be a new secretariat. What format will that take and how many people will it employ? Will it be located in Brussels? The high representative position is substantial so it will require an extensive secretariat, as well as the external service.

Mr. Cooney indicated the Swedish Presidency is working on these matters. How extensive will the external service be? Are we talking about embassies across the world? What numbers will be recruited and what work has already been done? What impact will this have on our own external services? That issue must be teased out in detail.

The role of national parliaments has been welcomed by this committee and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs. We argued that the Lisbon treaty would provide an extra degree of democracy and access to European matters that did not exist for parliaments before. It is important that we all have information at the same time and participate in decisions on subsidiarity and on the veto.

Mr. Cooney referred to resources and the 20-day period will cause difficulties for the sectoral areas. It will also be exceedingly difficult for resources for the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, which will act as the clearing house for much of the information coming through. Can this work be done effectively by the existing committee? Has the matter been discussed in the Department in terms of the relationship between the European Union and foreign affairs departments in other countries? Is it envisaged that there will be a direct input, as distinct from the reception of information and the response to the legislative proposals from member states, in terms of annual planning before the Commission makes a decision to dispense information to us? Does Mr. Cooney have any idea about how that might be arranged prior to the annual plan being put in place, how we might influence it and how we might input matters that might be relevant to this country, as distinct from responding to what comes from the Commission?

Meetings with Ministers going to and coming from Europe will be a big burden on the resources and secretariat of the committee as well. It is desirable that we would do so in the context of the enhanced role, and work on implementing it. The fact that so much legislation from Europe is implemented through statutory instrument is contrary to everything that has been proposed in the enhanced role for parliaments that we now have through the Lisbon treaty. Will we not have to revisit that situation and, in particular, the 2007 legislation in that respect? What are Mr. Cooney's views on that matter in terms of the enhanced democratic role of parliaments? If parliaments are not to have the opportunity to tease out legislative proposals then the measures would be simply put through by the line Minister.

Could we get a copy of the community action plan? Will Mr. Cooney send it to us? I am not sure whether we have access to it, but I would like to see it. I would also like to know what types of organisations applied for funding, what they are doing and where they are located. I believe a total of 40 organisations applied. What is the amount of funding? The issue of awareness and communicating information was central in both referenda.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is central to the Lisbon treaty, with a commitment to legislation with a social agenda. Is any mechanism in place to ensure that the various Departments take on board what seems to be, in effect, provisions of the Lisbon treaty that state that all future EU law must be rights-based in the context of the charter and must also have a social consideration in terms of its content? If that is the case in terms of national parliaments framing laws for the future, surely that is something that should be brought to the attention of all Departments to ensure that they are in line with the provisions of the Lisbon treaty? It should also be brought to the attention of all those who will frame legislation to come before these Houses.

I am going on for too long. My final point relates to research. When did the Department commission the research? Who is conducting it and when will we have the outcome?

Mr. David Cooney

I thank Deputy Costello for his remarks. As regards the new institutions and the new secretariat, with the agreement of the Chairman I will invite my colleague, Mr. Peter Gunning, to provide more information.

The European Council will be serviced by the existing Council secretariat. The creation of a new secretariat will not be required. The existing secretariat is based in Brussels. The external action service, which will be headed up by the high representative, will service external relations. Work is ongoing on that and we expect to have firm proposals on it by April 2010. At the moment we are considering how we bring together officials from the Commission, the Council secretariat and the member states. The Commission already operates an extensive network of missions around the world. There is no doubt that the new EU missions will be a transformation of those missions.

The big question is how one knits together those three services. The member states have been insistent that they will have a role in the new service, that officials from the member states will be able to move in and out of the service to make sure that it reflects the concerns of member states. Each member state will have to identify what I expect to be a relatively small number of people who will be in that service. The Department has circulated staff to establish the level of interest. A number of staff members are interested in serving. I expect the posts will be filled by competition. At the same time, just as in organisations such as the European Union, there will have to be a geographical balance between the various national categories.

The impact of the external actions service on our mission network is something all member states are currently considering. My personal view, because of what I said earlier, is that I would not expect it to have a huge impact because our missions are promoting Irish trade, Irish development policies and looking after the Irish community abroad. I do not see EU missions doing that.

There is a question as to whether EU missions will take on responsibility for consular affairs. That would be welcome in areas where we do not have our own embassies, but we have missions in approximately 60 countries. We have 75 missions but some of those are consular and others are multilateral. There are approximately 194 member countries of the United Nations. We do not have missions in most countries. The European Union would probably aspire to do so. There will be many countries in the world where the European Union will have a mission where this country will not have an embassy. Clearly, one would hope that they would represent our interests in those countries and, if necessary, provide consular assistance to Irish citizens. As of now I cannot see that the establishment of the EU service would lead to the closure of any Irish embassies because I do not think they would be doing the same job as our missions currently undertake.

The question of resources for the committee was raised. Currently, it is difficult to judge exactly how much extra work will be entailed. Although national parliaments have considerable powers under the treaty, the instances where they would, for instance, seek to challenge a measure on the basis of subsidiarity or to veto it, would be rare. In the case of subsidiarity I expect that national parliaments would be working together. It is not a question of one national parliament putting up its hand and saying it does not like it. One has to have a minimum of, in most cases, a third of all national parliaments making the same point to have any effect. It is not likely that the Oireachtas will be acting on its own. I do not think such cases will arise very often.

The level of issues that were raised by a number of parliaments was surprising in the pilot subsidiarity checks to date. The substantial issue is subsidiarity and it is dealt with in the more meaningful debate on the role of national parliaments and the participation of Dáil Éireann in debates. A big issue in the campaign was the disconnect with the electorate. While the committee has a very effective secretariat, meaningful debate could be lost because of the disconnect on directives. A total of 500 directives come from the Commission each year and much of the electorate was very concerned that under the 2002 Act, amended by the 2007 Act, 98% of them were transposed into Irish law with little or no debate. Ireland has an opportunity to fully participate in a debate on European directives that have an impact on every citizen. We would lose this opportunity if we got sidetracked into doing only subsidiarity checks. Many directives have impacts that are not in breach of subsidiarity but we would like the Department's support on other issues of concern and hold the Minister to account. A point was made that line Ministers would be more answerable to committees on issues of negotiation. This is about holding the Government to account on how it negotiates a directive.

Mr. David Cooney

I fully recognise the Chairman's concerns on transposition. I simply referred to regulations coming through. There is always sensitivity on the question of subsidiarity. Some people have the view that the EU should hardly legislate and that it should be left to member states. There are certainly some people in the neighbouring island who feel that way. I do not expect, particularly given this new provision, that the Commission will seek to be reckless about subsidiarity.

The Chairman and Deputy Costello raised the issue of scrutiny of transposition. That was highlighted in the report of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union and it is a legitimate point of debate. It is not for me to say it should happen and unfortunately I do not control the purse strings of the committee's secretariat. I have had the pleasure of working with those two very fine people.

In comparison with the level of resources given to this matter across the water, where directives are scrutinised line by line with public hearings on their impact with vested interests, the massive deficit is very apparent and Deputy Costello raised this point. The Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union made a number of recommendations. Perhaps it is not in the witnesses' remit to comment on this but we should seize the opportunity on this historic day to make meaningful the enhanced role of national parliaments through the implementation and transposition of the sub-committee's recommendations. If the enhanced role is to mean anything, documents must go to parliaments to be scrutinised after they leave the Commission.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs will have a huge remit. This will be discussed in the debates on the White Paper and Green Paper. The roles of Eurojust, Europol and due diligence at the Court of Auditors will also be discussed in those debates. The submission makes many recommendations but how will we have meaningful debate on them to ensure the meaningful participation of Dáil Éireann? The witnesses alluded to the information office. We have a massive deficit in Dáil Éireann as the huge number of people who visit here see nothing of Europe. Other parliaments have offices to promote Europe. It is a loss to this Parliament that there is no indication that we are part of Europe once one enters the building.

Mr. David Cooney

Personally, I am fully sympathetic with the Chairman's remarks. However, neither I nor the Department controls it. I will send Deputy Costello, the Chairman and all members of the committee a copy of the communications action plan and the list of organisations that receive funding.

A question was asked about the current study. In recent days, it was awarded through the normal public tendering process to Millward Brown Lansdowne. When the conclusions are put together they will be made public and not just here as we will share them with our European colleagues. I am not aware that action has been taken to brief legislative draftsmen on the Charter of Fundamental Rights but I will follow up on this. My colleague Mr. Gunning will address other matters.

Mr. Peter Gunning

The budget and support for the work of the European Council as an institution will come from the general secretariat of the Council and it will be physically located in Brussels adjacent to the Justus Lipsius building, which is the current Council building. Offices on Rue de la Loi beside that building are being prepared as the permanent seat for meetings of the European Council as well as for Mr. Van Rompuy and the small cabinet staff he will have to assist him.

From our point of view as a foreign ministry, the European External Action Service, EEAS, is a very important and attractive development for those joining the Department of Foreign Affairs. I hope it will become a natural point of rotation for three or four years for staff members from national foreign ministries who will then return with the experience and variety of postings and work it would entail. Catherine Ashton has just taken up her position as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. She will also be a Vice-President of the Commission and as such she must go through the process of approval by the European Parliament.

The development of the EEAS will be in three phases. Catherine Ashton is working with the transition team to put together a legal base for the EEAS, which should be adopted by April next year. Next will be a two or three-year phase of initial establishment with a review, and the EEAS will be fully operational at the end of that period. No figure has been put on full staffing but I have heard figures of 3,500 to 4,000 being mentioned. This will incorporate the three streams mentioned, that is RELEX, which is the external relations part of the current Commission, that part of the general secretariat of the Council that deals with external relations, and a contribution of staffers from the member states. It is realistic to state that in the initial period, as Mr. Cooney stated, the numbers involved from the member states will be relatively small, at least from a member state the size of Ireland. Participation at the frontline of the EEAS is an extremely attractive and valuable opportunity for Irish diplomats. It will interact with and will be influential on foreign policy debates in Ireland.

As of today, the offices the Commission has in third countries become EU missions. That is a simple act of designation, but it will have practical implications once the European External Action Service, EEAS, is fully up and running. Those missions will be headed by European Union ambassadors appointed by Ms Ashton, as head of the EEAS. Not everyone in the missions will be with the EEAS because one will continue to have, for example, development aid specialists or trade specialists but they will be a recognisable representation of the European Union and its external action in all third countries.

Deputy Costello made a point about the Charter of Fundamental Rights and drafting work by parliamentary draftspersons. I do not fully understand the question. What margin for manoeuvre would be left to a parliamentary draftsperson on something as fundamental as ensuring that all legislation is rights-based after the Commission had made its proposal and the Council and parliament had legislated?

My question related directly to European Union legislation because that is an imperative from the European Union itself and the Commission to come up with rights-based legislation following on from the charter. My question was about how this country will respond to the Treaty of Lisbon in a similar fashion. It is important that it would be brought to the attention of draftspersons that we have passed the Treaty of Lisbon, which imposes a responsibility on the European Commission in drawing up directives to deal with legislation in this fashion, taking cognisance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the social agenda. Equally, it should be brought to the attention of our draftspersons in terms of domestic legislation across the member states.

I welcome the delegation and congratulate Mr. Cooney. I wish to add to what was said about the work of the Department in the release of Fr. Sinnott and Sharon Commins and her colleague. I also congratulate Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. I was privileged to be on the same teaching staff as she and to be elected on the same day. I was told there was something like a 1,000,000:1 chance of that happening. That is why I play lotto every week.

Reference was made to Communicating Europe. I very much welcome the fact that the Department has carried out research and that a publicity campaign was aimed at certain groups such as unskilled workers, women and people between the age of 25 and 39. That research is useful.

Another important aspect of the Lisbon treaty is the Citizens' Initiative. Many issues relating to the environment have been the subject of petitions to Europe. I presume the initiative will assist people who wish to lobby for change. We have already seen situations that relate, for example, to turf cutting. We discuss issues relating to the environment, which are particularly important. I hope that will be pursued further. Perhaps Mr. Cooney would give us more information.

I have a brief comment on embassies. I hope the smaller embassies would not be sacrificed because of cutbacks, especially those in developing countries. I have some experience in that regard as I chaired a committee on overseas development for a number of years and I was Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for overseas development. Many of those who work in embassies, especially ambassadors and consuls, are almost like CEOs of small industries in the way they operate. As Mr. Cooney indicated, trade is an important aspect of their work, especially in the poorest countries. I hope we will not forget that.

I could not miss the opportunity to mention flooding, as I am from Galway in the west. When I left Galway this morning many people were in serious difficulty due to flooding. Some people cannot go back to their houses and the farming community is in difficulty. I am somewhat disappointed that there has not been a positive response from Europe to assist with the flooding. We talk about solidarity in Europe and there is a solidarity fund but from my contact with MEPs in the Ireland West constituency, support from Europe for people in difficulty does not appear to be forthcoming. The Government has provided €10 million but that is not enough. A further €2 million has been provided for animal feedstuffs. At times such as this we should have something more definite.

The Chairman referred to a disconnect. That is what makes people really annoyed. We are part of a European community and a serious flooding situation has arisen in many parts of the country. We do not know where we are going from here. Everyone has a view on how it happened and how it can be sorted out. I do not think there is a definitive view but the debate is ongoing. I expect a response from Europe. If the solidarity fund is not available to us, perhaps Mr. Cooney would indicate whether another source of funding is available? I do not wish to take from the historic day but people wish to know what is our role in Europe if no assistance is provided when people are in serious difficulties.

The Green Paper on the Citizens' Initiative will be discussed in the Joint Committee on European Affairs in the coming weeks.

Mr. David Cooney

I invite my colleague, Mr. Charles Sheehan, to bring the committee up to date on Communicating Europe, as he oversees that programme.

On the Citizens' Initiative, I do not have much more to say than I said in my opening statement. The Chairman has referred to work in that regard. This is an attractive proposal but work is still under way in terms of establishing how precisely it will work. We need to await the outcome of that work.

I thank Deputy Kitt for his reference to the work done by embassies in developing countries. I say somewhat ruefully that perhaps we should not confuse small countries with small embassies because as it happens, apart from the United States and London, our embassies in developing countries are among our biggest. They are better funded and better resourced, with more people working in them. The real Cinderellas are in some of the European Union member states where we have in some cases one-person missions. I can say with confidence that we will not be closing any embassies in developing countries. The Government continues to place an extremely high priority on development co-operation and meeting our commitments in that regard. I do not think I am pre-empting the Minister for Finance in saying I am confident that at least embassies in those countries would not be closed.

On flooding, the Government was quick off the mark with the European Union. We got on to it straight away to establish whether we met the eligibility requirements for the solidarity fund. I do not know whether to say it was fortunate or unfortunate that we did not because the criteria are sufficiently high that the country would have to be in an even more serious flood crisis than is currently the case. As of now, we do not meet the criteria and one hopes that the situation will not get worse as that would bring us into that category. On the other hand, I accept what the Deputy said that it is a shame that there is not some mechanism that has a rather lower threshold for qualification.

From watching the news at the weekend I thought EU officials were coming to examine the flood damage.

Mr. David Cooney

It may be that there is a way around this and that a way of helping can be found but the initial reaction is that the threshold is very high. Europe can be creative when it needs to be.

In support of Deputy Michael Kitt, one can see the devastation in Carrick-on-Shannon in Leitrim, although it is not to the same extent as that in Galway as there are economies of scale. I spoke to people at the weekend who have much hope of solidarity funding and it would be disappointing if EU officials coming for a first-hand overview could be interpreted as anything other than support in this major crisis. What I saw in Leitrim and Roscommon is devastating for the people and businesses concerned.

Mr. David Cooney

I ask the Chairman not to misinterpret me because in no way do I wish to underestimate or belittle the terrible circumstances in which people find themselves. When we first made inquiries the criteria were somewhat crude. The damage had to be equivalent to a certain percentage of national income and it did not reach that point. The damage in particular localities would impact to that order but not throughout the country as a whole. It is being examined. The European Union generally tries to be helpful in these issues.

I have no doubt from a business sense that it would be very difficult to carry out an evaluation of the outturn and put a cost on the real loss. I am astonished that it does not qualify under the evaluation being carried out for the solidarity fund. Projections from insurers mean that many properties will be prevented from being re-insured in the future. From my observations, I am quite certain that if one was to quantify the losses they would be huge.

I thank the Chairman and on this historic day I welcome Mr. Cooney and his delegation. I wish him well on his appointment. I also wish to be associated with the vote of congratulations to Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. She is fortunate in that she knows how Government and Europe work and she will be able to get to work immediately and do an excellent job.

I do not want to be repetitive but I want to discuss a number of points that have been raised. Was the first research project published? Was how the political parties performed and the role they played in getting the European message across taken into account? Will these matters be taken into account in the new research project?

Deputy Costello raised the important point of how one would amend European legislation. We receive many directives and much legislation from Europe but we get an opportunity to amend them. Very good amendments could be drafted which would make some of the legislation better for Ireland and more workable. Perhaps legislation could come before the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny at an initial stage when Ireland is bringing legislation to Europe before it comes back here. Perhaps there is another way to allow us amend a directive or legislation.

Deputy Michael Kitt raised the issue of the damage caused by the flooding. Mr. Cooney stated that it had to reach a certain level before funding may be provided. Who decides whether it has reached this certain monetary level and whether one is entitled to compensation? A state of emergency should be put in place in parts of the country.

On a point of information on changes to legislation, under the 2002 Act, the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny can make recommendations to the Minister to introduce legislative changes to a directive. The committee will have enhanced powers of scrutiny through subsidiarity and increased involvement through debate in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann.

Mr. David Cooney

I was thrown by the question on research because given the reference to Máire Geoghegan-Quinn I thought the Senator meant technical research but he meant market research. The first report was published and the second will be. In the second report we will identify factors that caused people to vote the way they did. The efforts of the political parties in the referendum campaign would be among the factors to be taken into account.

Opportunities for the committee and the Oireachtas to input into EU legislation come at two points, in the period prior to the legislation being adopted and at the moment directives are transposed into Irish law, which is often done through statutory instruments and secondary legislation. As the Chairman stated, the committee has rights under the Act and there is nothing to prevent the Oireachtas from making proposals to the Government on particular issues. All legislative proposals will now be received at the same time by the Parliament, the Council and the Government and Oireachtas Members will be able to see them and form their own opinions of them. It is up to the Oireachtas and Ministers, but in many cases Ministers do not come before committees prior to going to Council meetings to discuss legislation. I do not want to be prescriptive about how the Oireachtas handles its affairs but opportunities exist.

Where the Government is negotiating on behalf of Ireland on the adoption of EU legislation, the most effective way of inputting is through the Government. When the Government goes to the Council it becomes more of an international negotiation. There are 27 member states and it is extremely difficult to reach agreement at that point. The outcome is the best negotiation between 27 member states. Just like any treaty, it is not necessarily the preferred option of any member state, it is the outcome of a process. From the point of view of the Oireachtas, the best way of influencing that process is to make one's views known to the Government.

I do not have absolute information on the flood damage but my expectation is that the Commission will be the arbiter of this matter. I will check that and get back to the committee.

Does somebody from here put forward a proposal?

Mr. David Cooney

Yes, the Government——

Who does that? Is it the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government?

Mr. David Cooney

It is the Government and in this case I imagine it would be the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that would put together a proposal. Nothing that I say should be construed as underestimating the terrible impact of the flooding and the huge damage done to people's lives, businesses and homes. My understanding is that we were looking at arithmetical thresholds that had to be met but I will come back with more details to the committee.

I thank Mr. Cooney for that information.

I fully recognise Mr. Cooney's huge commitment in this area and thank him. In regard to the communications unit within the Oireachtas, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Micheál Martin, was very supportive of the possibility of putting in place an information desk in Leinster House, but not at huge expense. In light of the number of students, from national school level upwards, who visit the House and may not go to the European offices on Molesworth Street, perhaps he would consider the possibility of producing a European information leaflet. Unfortunately no such leaflets are available in Leinster House. Given its low cost it is remiss that no such facility is in place. This matter has been raised with the Ceann Comhairle. It is something that could easily be done and it is a huge missed opportunity.

In regard to the new communications action plan on the relevance of Europe, was there any drive towards universities and IT colleges in the promotion of Europe? From business to IT colleges, even prior to the last Lisbon treaty campaign, many students were highly cynical of the European question. Perhaps we should look at the promotion of Europe within universities and IT colleges which would be done at a low cost. There is also the new website and its relevance to the Irish people. How is it being promoted? Is it through the national broadcaster, provincial press or by some other means? How is the message getting out? It is a fantastic facility and given the amount of broadband facilities in the State the cost base is low.

In regard to the provision of funds for civil society groups for EU awareness, does the Department intend to provide funding for European studies in universities and colleges and getting people into Europe and more interaction with the European Parliament and more exchanges? That is an opportunity that is also missed.

Mr. David Cooney

I said a few minutes ago that I would ask Mr. Sheehan who heads up the Communicating Europe programme to respond.

Mr. Charles Sheehan

To take a broad look at the issue and illustrate how we have developed this programme following on from the research last autumn, one of the strongest messages that came out of that research, in terms of Communicating Europe, was the need to make Europe relevant. People found it difficult to connect with debates about institutions and had not realised the direct impact Europe has on people's lives. Therefore, the eumatters.ie website tries to target groups with information that is relevant to their lives. For example, the Chairman mentioned students. There is an area dealing with education and the European Union, particularly through its ERASMUS programme, has had a very important impact at third level. There is also information for consumers, another area where Europe has had a very important and direct impact on people’s lives. In terms of promoting that website, an extensive promotional campaign took place at the outset in July. At this stage we are promoting it through online search, Google adwords, words and so on. In light of the recent research we will review what has been most effective in terms of promoting the website and what media has reached people.

In terms of civic society groups, this year and in preceding years, we advertised widely inviting expressions of interest from people who had ideas for promoting Europe. This, as the Secretary General mentioned, was the programme that funded approximately 40 different groups. We did not fund third level groups but we did provide funding for curriculum development at primary and second level on the European Union. There is a clear need for a greater awareness in our school system of the role of Europe at the appropriate level.

On that point, while there is no DVD on Europe for primary schools we should seize the opportunity of getting into schools. From a value-for-money point of view it is amazing how effective it can be. Of all the students who visit the Dáil, very few mention anything about Europe.

Mr. Charles Sheehan

We do not have a DVD specifically for schools but the website has a lot of video material and other material that would probably be more suited to second level students where they can see people familiar from the YouTube environment. Young people would relate to that type of information. I certainly took note of the earlier suggestion in regard to the provision of leaflets about Europe and I would be happy to follow that up with the secretariat.

I raised this issue before and the Minister, Deputy Martin, was very supportive of the idea of putting in place in the House a kiosk on Europe and the member states where visiting students could pick up an information leaflet. That would be very beneficial for teachers.

Is the website interactive? Can one engage like students who want to do a project? Is somebody accessible to answer queries? Is there any blogging facility?

Mr. Peter Gunning

There is an interactive process and people can raise questions. That has been one of the most successful features of the eumatters.ie website. People are free to raise questions.

How does one handle that? Is there a person or group available to service it for school projects and so on?

Mr. Charles Sheehan

We have somebody who services it by following up with the relevant Departments who have sectoral responsibility. Sometimes the questions are broad enough that we can answer them from our own information. We will review how we are managing those questions. In other words, some of them are very precise questions of a legal nature and some are more broad, such as school projects. We will look at how we can provide better information to those requests.

We fully acknowledge the great work being done in the Department. The embassies and the diplomatic service are delighted to hear the reassurances from trade and business who do an outstanding job. I compliment all the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs on its great work on Europe and the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, its proactive approach and support to the Oireachtas and, likewise, its support to this committee in regard to implementation. We certainly need your help as we do not want people coming back in two year's time asking how effective the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny has been on doing its job. It is important to the Irish people and for the development of Europe that we live up to the 2002 and 2009 Acts. We did not go into detail on the six-monthly report but clearly it is an important document. It indicates the level of work during the Presidency and any six-monthly period about the relevance of directors and all those who impact on the lives of Irish people. Clearly it is important that we have such a meaningful debate here.

We plan to meet the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach to arrange for more meaningful debate on European issues in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Secretary General's reassurances today that other Departments will co-operate with the committee are very welcome. There will not be many subsidiarity breaches but there are directives that would have an impact. The dialogue with parliamentarians within Dáil Éireann and within this committee will be more knowledge-based when there is greater contact. Unfortunately issues do not always get the full attention they warrant.

I thank the Secretary General and his team for their attendance. We look forward to working with them within the co-ordinating Department and thank them for the review. We were reassured by what we heard on this historic day and we wish them all well.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.45 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 8 December 2009.
Top
Share