JOINT COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, OVERSIGHT AND PETITIONS debate -
Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011

Orders of Reference: Discussion with European Parliament

Chairman

Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir. Tá brón orm go bhfuilimid beagáinín déanach. Táimid i sesiún poiblí anois. I remind committee members and people in the public gallery to switch off all mobile phones or Blackberrys. Even when on silent mode, they can cause interference with the communications technology here.

We have received apologies from Deputies Alan Farrell and Dara Calleary. We are pleased to welcome Mr. David Lowe, head of the secretariat of the petitions committee of the European Parliament. Thank you very much for coming along today. This committee is required to bring forward proposals on the petitions system in the Houses of the Oireachtas. We are grateful to have the opportunity to listen to Mr. Lowe speak about the petitions system in the European Parliament.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give 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 nor make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I call on you now to make a brief presentation on your work with the European Parliament following which we will take questions from committee members.

Mr. David Lowe

Thank you Chairman. I thank members of the committee for inviting me to this meeting. I consider it a privilege to be here. It also reflects to a certain extent on the work the petitions committee of the European Parliament has managed to achieve in recent years. Members of the committee have been to Ireland on a number of occasions to work with Irish citizens and residents about issues concerning EU areas of activity here, and we have contributed as best we can to resolve many of these matters.

Our work is very much in the European context, and I would not presume to try to imply anything or try to teach this Parliament or the Irish authorities anything. I am just trying to describe how we work as best I can, in the hope that there may be elements that will be of use to the committee in preparing itself to create what I think is an essential part of modern parliamentary activity. It is quite clear that the European Parliament considers that, at a time when many citizens are moving away from normal established political activity, it is incumbent on parliaments to demonstrate that they are capable of listening to citizens and making them feel such parliaments are working in their interests and are involved with their interests. The procedures the European Parliament has developed over the years for doing this have, to a certain extent, stood the test of time, although I would admit we also have a number of weaknesses. We do not have all the power we would like, but in spite of that, we obtain a sufficient degree of positive response from citizens and associations with whom we work to demonstrate that somewhere along the line we must have got something right. We are certainly on the right track.

The first thing I will address is the fact that petitions committees do not have a magic wand. Most petitioners would like us to have one so we could resolve their problems immediately. That is important for obvious reasons, but it is incumbent on any petitions committee to be able to say that not every petitioner is right. Much of the work of the committee is to ensure that when it does disagree with citizens and their petitions or finds their allegations unfounded, it must be clear about this and provide some sort of justification so that even if the citizens concerned are disappointed and feel they did not get what they wanted, at least they know the Parliament has treated them with respect, considered their cases and provided suitable, or at least reasonable, explanations. That is fundamental to all petitions and is the foundation on which we need to work.

We have specific criteria of admissibility which must be also considered by any committee. Our criteria would not be your criteria, and that is something this committee should consider in more detail. Our criteria concern the fields of activity of the European Union. It is pretty broad. It goes beyond, specifically, the implementation of Community law, even though that is a large part of our work. Potentially, it covers any area the treaty gives to the EU institutions to deal with. What we do not deal with - we consider such petitions as inadmissible - are all issues that would be recognised under the terms of the subsidiarity principle, which is the competence of the member states, or issues that are within the competence of the courts. We are not there to second-guess the judgment of a duly constituted court or legal tribunal. That is clearly off-limits, and petitioners are informed of this and the fact that their petitions are therefore inadmissible.

The bulk of the committee's activity, therefore, consists of dealing with questions that are raised under perhaps only one signature - but possibly many more - to do with various aspects of the application of Community law. That amounts to about 80% of the work of the committee. Community law is a vast area and within that, the environment is probably the number one issue, including all the different aspects of EU environment policy and directives. We deal with questions related to the Internal Market, social affairs, employment, taxation - broadly speaking, any issue that comes under the auspices of EU fields of activity. One particularly important field that is developing more and more, particularly since the Lisbon treaty came into effect, is petitions related to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has a growing role in our day-to-day activity and brings with it a lot of quite complex procedural problems.

There are 35 members in our committee and the chairman has an important role. Not only does he or she manage the work of the committee and take over all political responsibility, he or she also signs all the letters, because we believe it is important that all petitioners get an official response from the body to which they have addressed themselves, and therefore it is not sufficient to get the secretariat to sign a letter; it must be the chairman or vice chairman of the committee.

We have monthly meetings at which petitioners themselves have an opportunity to speak. This is a hallmark of the work of our committee. When petitions reach the agenda and the items are discussed, the petitioners themselves have the right to speak in the committee, just as I am addressing this committee today. A petitioner has the right to introduce his or her petition using PowerPoint demonstrations or any other way that is suitable to communicate the petition to the committee members. We normally give them about five minutes, but this committee is giving me longer than that this afternoon. In this way, petitioners are involved not only in a representative democracy but also in a participative democracy. That is something that more and more of our citizens are demanding. It is extremely important for citizens to feel they have earned the respect of the institution that represents them and that they are able to express themselves freely in those circumstances.

My presence here demonstrates that the committee must have a professional and competent secretariat in order to manage the work of the committee on the clear understanding that it is only its members who take the decisions. The secretariat has an organisational responsibility; it also acts in an advisory capacity based on the various aspects of our work and levels of information that members require. The interface between the secretariat and the chairman and the secretariat and the other members must be absolutely based on confidence and trust, in a way which is completely non-partisan. My belief is that the work of a petitions committee is strongest when it is consensual. When the committee is able to reach a decision on which there is a broad consensus, its strength is enhanced whatever its specific written role may be. People in the media and the outside world will always pay much more attention to issues when it is clear the deliberation is such that a pragmatic response can be found or a procedure for a non-judicial remedy can be concluded for any case. The broader the basis on which that decision is taken, the more powerful that decision is and the more influence it has.

The committee gets a couple of thousand petitions every year - slightly fewer last year than the previous year - and about half of them are admissible. This means our committee deals with somewhere between 750 and 900 admissible petitions. Not every petition will come before the committee. There must be a system, when dealing with such numbers, to ensure that - while respecting the petitioner - each petition gets a proper investigation and that the petitioner gets an answer. However, not every issue will be the subject of discussion or debate with members of the committee. It is based on the advice the secretariat provides, in liaison with the chairman and, in our case, with the co-ordinators of the committee, that we establish an agenda that prioritises petitions and ensures those that have the most political significance or have the most impact on a local community are the ones that are discussed and debated as a priority. One part of the agenda, the A part, is the petitions about which there will be a debate; there is also the B part of the agenda, which is a much longer list of petitions which have been investigated by the secretariat, with the help of the Commission, and on which we think we have enough information to respond to the petitioner without the need for a debate. We can deal in that way with many petitions under written procedure and provide the petitioner, we hope, with a satisfactory explanation that is signed by the chairman.

The democratic aspect of this comes into play when any single member of the committee decides he or she does not agree with the placing of a particular item on the B part of the agenda and that it should be debated. Any one member can voice an objection and that item is then placed on the A part of the agenda at a subsequent meeting. Thus, there is a safeguard built in; the committee is facilitated in dealing with a large number of petitions in an open and transparent way but at the same time prioritises them to ensure members have the opportunity for a proper discussion on the key issues that will concern them and that will concern local communities directly.

This is how the agendas are organised. What weapons do we have at our disposal, if the committee will excuse me for putting it that way? The main parliamentary weapon is that we can present a report to the European Parliament. We do that sparingly, but on key issues it is extremely important that the individual citizen knows that if the committee so decides, and the issue raised is so important, it can be raised on the floor of the House, a debate can take place and a resolution can be adopted which either supports or does not support the petitioner's concern. This ensures the institution as a whole is asked to pronounce on issues. A debate can take place and a resolution can be adopted which would either support or otherwise the petitioners concerned but which would ensure the institution as a whole is asked to pronounce itself on issues. One can group together petitions on similar issues. Sometimes it is helpful to use parliamentary procedures to impact on the need to revise legislation or to come to terms with a particular issue. An important report to be adopted in committee on 3 October will deal with the waste management directive. Waste, including matters relating to landfill and incinerators, is a significant issue that comes under the auspices of EU law but which is rarely applied properly by many member states. We have carried out a report on this and it is in plenary. A debate involving all the political groups will take place and we should emerge with a clear position of the Parliament which will incite the Commission to improve legislation and incite members states to take advice and so on.

Another opportunity we have is the use of fact-finding visits. These are one of the key mechanisms used by the committee. It is frugal in terms of the use of financial and human resources but it allows the committee to send two or three members to the member state concerned where the petitioners have come from to conduct an investigation on the spot. The Chairman stated I was subject to privilege so the committee will excuse me if I suggest it is a case of the mountain going to Muhammad rather than Muhammad going to the mountain and this is recognised by local communities and authorities. When they see that people in the European Parliament take the trouble to go all the way to Cork because there is an issue there with quarries that is of concern to individuals, it means people sit up and listen. It allows a small number of members acting on behalf of the committee to act as a catalyst by bringing together different authorities with the petitioners - I use Cork as an example, it is not necessarily meant to be followed up - and it allows them to confront an issue in a way they may have been unable to do without the presence of the fact-finding visit.

In addition, the official members of the delegation produce a report and recommendations may be adopted at the following meetings of the committee. This means the journalists and press are involved. They are informed that we cannot provide the solution now but if they come to our committee in one months time, they will see our draft recommendations on the table. They can be adopted by the committee and there is some follow-up and momentum which has developed. All of this moves in the interest of the citizen. We can demonstrate that we are there in every part of our activity because of a petition. It represents an important political signal.

When we decide to carry out a fact-finding visit it is seldom for secondary reasons. It is because the issue is complex and it may be controversial locally. Any members going there to examine the matter should not represent the area concerned. They should come from the outside, act on behalf of the committee and ultimately on behalf of the institution. Naturally, the local members, the MEPs that come from the member state or region concerned, are entitled to participate in the delegation but in an ex officio capacity. Their legitimacy, elected status, advice and knowledge of the local environment is recognised but the members of the fact-finding visit with the help of the secretariat, who take notes and so on, prepare the report and recommendations and try to ensure a solution materialises. The point is that the petitioners see an outcome to their work. We do not have a magic wand in such circumstances but nor do we need one. We must simply demonstrate to people that they are on the map and their concerns are being taken seriously. That much is important. In addition we can present questions to plenary, introduce short resolutions and so on which are also important.

I realise the committee is also interested in the concern expressed by many members about the possible overlap of competencies with other bodies such as the Ombudsman in Ireland. As far as the EU is concerned the European ombudsman has clear responsibilities to investigate allegations of maladministration within the EU institutions and bodies and our committee does not. Neither is it an appeal mechanism when people do not agree with the ombudsman's assessment. Nevertheless, our committee is responsible for organising the election of the ombudsman and of receiving his or her annual report. Beyond that, the ombudsman is the ombudsman and the petitions committee is the petitions committee and there is no overlap. It is decidedly important that the distinction is respected properly and when a petition comes from a citizen which complains about the fact that a Commission department has not acted properly, we make the point that it is not our competence and we hand over the matter to the ombudsman who then deals with the matter. We do not touch such cases. Such ground rules are particularly important to avoid overlapping competence. However, it is clear that the authority and moral respect that a parliament commands is phenomenal and goes beyond that of the courts of justice if the work of the committee is credible and if it is capable of coming to terms with many of the complex issues citizens raise. I have not said much about the flippant petitions and so on but I hope I have make my point and I am perfectly willing to answer Members' questions for as long as necessary.

Chairman

Thank you Mr. Lowe. That was a fascinating insight into how your petition committee works and how you manage to bring individuals from society into the democratic process and empower them to resolve issues outstanding in their communities. Osclóidh mé an t-urlár le haghaidh ceisteanna. An chéad cheist, an Teachta Ó Snodaigh.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I thank Mr. Lowe for his presentation. It will be useful to have heard how the procedure works in the European Union as we draw up our remit in the coming months. Are there problems with the mechanism at the moment? We are keen not to repeat mistakes made in other areas. We are also considering the Scottish model and we will try to learn from both. Will Mr. Lowe provide some examples of successful petitions? This is important so that we have a concept of exactly what type of work will land on our desk. Mr. Lowe raised the matter of overlap with the Ombudsman and I asked question outside about it. There also an overlap with many of the committees in the Parliament here. The remit is not altogether set. For example, if someone writes to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and writes to us as well without informing us of the other correspondence, we could end up with two committees of the House considering the same issue. How does the European Parliament Committee on Petitions prevent this from taking place? The same could be true of the European Parliament as it has committees as well?

Mr. David Lowe

I will answer the questions in order. Do we have problems? Yes we do. The Committee on Petitions is the committee of problems and it is up to us to try to resolve some of these. We are moderately or reasonable successful at it because we address them in a democratic, open and transparent way. Many problems can be avoided by ensuring proper transparency in the work of the committee. The target of any petitions committee is to ensure the public is aware of the work it does. If one makes a wrong decision or a decision someone does not like, that is not a problem, it is our right. But we can also correct wrong decisions and come back to things. One must use political common sense.

Problems arise with regard to competence. As I remarked previously, under the terms of subsidiarity we respect the competences of member states to pursue their policies that do not fall under the terms of the treaty. However, sometimes when we get petitions there are grey areas. The contents of the Lisbon treaty are not clear cut for the average citizen or resident of the EU. The competences of members states may be universal to some extent but they are not necessarily obvious either. One problem we deal with and which, on the whole, we manage reasonably well, relates to this grey area. When we approach a problem involving another member state, we always talk about working in co-operation with it to resolve the problem. We will seek to do that. We will not go over the heads of anyone precisely to avoid that particular problem. That area of competence is probably the first and essential problem to which I draw the attention of the committee.

We have had some successful petitions, but I would advise against the use of the word "successful". What citizens require is a credible response. It may not always be a complete success but they will feel the committee has examined their issues, as I said in my introduction. In many cases the activity of the committee has led to things not happening that would otherwise have happened to the detriment of local communities.

There is an example in Poland where in the Viabaltica the Government wanted to run a motorway through a highly protected primaeval forest which is the last area where one finds European bison and other creatures. A lot of money exchanged hands and effort was put into the motorway. The committee worked with the Commission, having had a fact-finding visit, consulted the local population and been very much involved. The Commission got an injunction through the European Court of Justice, which is extremely unusual. We also got the Polish Government to change the path of the motorway. The trans-European corridor now avoids the area and many heavy lorries have been prevented from going through certain villages, which was a major complaint. There are examples of that magnitude where we have been successful.

I mentioned salt flats in France and the establishment of a liquefied natural gas terminal in the Gironde Estuary. A major Canadian company wanted to impose an LNG terminal because it was in its interests to do so. It was cheap and the land was there. Based on environmental directives, we managed to work with the Département de la Gironde and insisted to the French authorities that if they proceeded with the project, they would infringe EU legislation. The petitioners came to the committee with popular support. The Mayor of Royan, which is on the other side of the estuary, who is a member of the governing party was opposed to the project. He came to the committee and, therefore, national parliaments became involved. The project was shelved and will be set up in a more suitable industrial zone further up the coast.

Ireland has had mixed blessings in terms of successful petitions. I do not know if the committee is interested in hearing about any Irish petitions.

Chairman

It could be useful

Mr. David Lowe

Perhaps I could anticipate one or two. There are currently 60 open petitions from Ireland, comprising those that have been received and are under investigation. Many hundreds more have been closed, concluded and so on. Quite a few illustrate some of the difficulties we are faced with. Some of the difficulties have been around for quite some time.

An Irish farmer in Kilkenny had a problem with shrinking cows. I do not know whether members of the committee read about the case in the press. It may be well known but when we conducted a fact-finding visit to Ireland a few years ago, the chairman of the Irish Farmers Association and other interested bodies came with us. We were able to observe a lot of things and gather a lot of circumstantial evidence about the possible causes of the problem the farmer was having with his cattle. The problems only stopped when a brick factory downwind stopped producing bricks. We are not scientists but we asked for advice from people who had knowledge of science and veterinary issues and presented cases to us. The committee remains convinced the brick factory was an issue. We saw burned leaves in fields and other things. The problem has never been resolved in Ireland. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has liaised with the Joint Committee on the Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht and produced technical reports which we examined. The committee does not feel it responds to the circumstances the petitioner has to face, nor did it respond in any way to the loss of income and concerns the family have about living in the middle of the affected area.

I do not know how far we can push issues like that with the means we have at our disposal. The creation of this committee provides Ireland with an opportunity to communicate the issue and work in co-operation on some of these matters to try to push certain issues along which many have involved competencies because of the IPPC directive and other things we are concerned about. Some matters are ideally suited for a committee such as this to try to come to terms with and find suitable solutions for the individuals involved.

There was another issue on the other side of the country with an aluminium smelting plant in Aughinish on the Shannon Estuary. There are massive red mud pools, some of which went into Natura 2000 areas. It is not an eyesore but it is of real concern for the local communities who see the toxic sludge threatening to spill down the River Shannon any day and cause pollution. One only has to bear in mind the example of Hungary. There was an accident not long ago where people were killed and a village was wiped out. The case makes one realise the issue is unresolved because the competent authorities have not done as the European Parliament wished. It is not something we have pushed with the Commission to an infringement.

We have had more success with water. I do not know why Kilkenny comes up so much. For many years there was a problem with the water supply there because there was aluminium sludge in the water system. We dealt with it under the Water Framework Directive, the drinking water directive and so on. We had quite a few meetings with the authorities in Kilkenny County Council. The fact we were working with the council and it had to deal with the matter helped it in its negotiations with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Government to get the resources it needed to restore and repair some of the pipes in the area. Without our involvement, that may not have happened. It was all very hypothetical but a workable solution was developed through co-operation which provided a remedy. I do not want to labour the point.

Chairman

I have a quick follow up question. Mr. Lowe mentioned certain powers he would like. What would he like, within reason?

Mr. David Lowe

It is difficult to say. I am used to making the most of the powers I have. It is not a question of power but I would like to see more responsibility exercised by member states on the Committee on Petitions. We have good relations with some member states. Ireland may not agree with the answers but it gets them. Some member states do not.

There needs to be a more persuasive procedure in place agreed on an intra-institutional level which ensures that when we request information from authorities, we receive it. It may be something the committee can consider more specifically in its national context, but at a European level it has proved to be rather difficult to get intra-institutional agreements.

Deputy Michael McCarthy

I thank Mr. Lowe for his comments. The committee is at an embryonic stage. Any expertise we can lean on is very important for us to get an idea of the concept and see how it works successfully in other jurisdictions. I have some questions on his experience. What is the basic criteria for deciding when a petition merits an investigation? The information is filtered and at some stage a decision is made.

Mr. David Lowe

There is a balance between political concerns and the more objective assessment that has been made, based on information obtained by the secretariat or by sources which the secretariat is able to contact. If necessary, we will consult other members through a network we have developed. We rely, in particular, on the input of members. My experience demonstrates that they are alert to the fact that the more complex issue requires considerable debate. Given the varied nature of petitions, it is normally apparent these will need more deliberation and concern than others. For example, the case of a person from the Netherlands who has worked all his life in Germany and did not receive his pension payment properly is completely different in terms of European concerns than one involving a whole area or local community or one that concerns property rights in a particular country. We are able to form a value judgment on that basis, but it is not an exact science, by any means. It requires a certain political appreciation and give and take on the part of the members of the committee because when one is dealing with petitions, one is dealing with problems and, possibly, controversial issues. I would not say these issues may be offensive to other parties or interested members, but there could be an issue of that nature involved. We try to overcome it by ensuring that if there is serious disagreement on issues, the co-ordinators, the main spokespersons for each of the political groups which have a specific role in our committee, work out a solution. It is not a perfect science, but most of the important issues stand out clearly.

Deputy Michael McCarthy

I ask Mr. Lowe to cite a case of best practice where a petition is made and an investigation is launched and there is a satisfactory outcome for the petitioner. Will he cite a particular case as an example?

Mr. David Lowe

I think I have responded to that question to a certain extent. There have been so many cases that it is difficult to put my finger on one in particular. I refer to the role of reports in plenary session. A woman with MS from England petitioned the committee because she did not have access to the proper medicine to which she believed she was entitled. We used the provision under the EU treaty to ensure member states achieve a certain level of proficiency in health care and so on to develop a broad based recommendation to the Council - a code of best practice. On the basis of one petition, we consulted the MS societies in all countries that had come to the committee. We held expert sessions and drafted a report. Mr. Pat Cox was President of the European Parliament at the time. The result had a very significant effect and Louise McVay was the petitioner concerned. She was able to come to the plenary session in Strasbourg and be present when the recommendation was adopted. The impact of the decision was phenomenal, given that there are various MS societies and well over 500,000 families in the European Union with a member who has MS. This may not have been the example the Deputy had in mind, but it demonstrates what can be achieved by a petition if there is the political will and the members of the committee see the opportunity to close a gap in the spectrum of options available and, in that sense, create the event.

Deputy Michael McCarthy

Will Mr. Lowe outline briefly the individual stages of the process, including the timeframe involved when a petition is received? I understand this may involve foreign travel, as the committee deals with all European Union member states. As regards the use of outside expertise from professional bodies and individuals, how often is this required?

Mr. David Lowe

Our committee does not register petitions, as this is done by another service of the Parliament which deals generally with correspondence. When a petition arrives by either of the two options mentioned, mail and electronic mail, it is registered and sent to the committee. From the time it is received by the committee it takes a few weeks to process because we work in a multilingual environment. This has an impact on the timescale involved, particularly in the early stages. I distribute a petition to my colleagues which they will summarise and this summary is translated into all of the languages used by the committee. There is a time factor involved which can be between one and two months. From the time we begin to investigate, another couple of months are added, depending on the complexity of the case. We ask the European Commission to respond within this timeframe. We aim to at least have some information or provisional idea about the direction of the petition after approximately six months.

We also have procedures in place for dealing with urgent matters. This is a mechanism by which the co-ordinators will agree to have an early statement on admissibility and to place the matter on the agenda as a matter of urgency if circumstances allow. Generally, the timeframe involved is a minimum of six months.

The committee may have a debate on a petition which may be inconclusive and in which case the petition is left open and further investigations are conducted. The committee will return to dealing with the matter several months later. We have petitions entered ten years ago which are still open. Some matters are not resolved quickly. However, the majority of cases are within one year. The timeframe is governed partly by the multilingual aspect of our work.

Deputy Michael Conaghan

There is some talk in this country, some voices have been raised, suggesting some of the work of the committee is not compatible with legal and constitutional norms and criteria. I ask Mr. Lowe for his opinion and on the canon of parliamentary procedure which has evolved over time on the appropriateness of the work we may be undertaking. He spoke about how such work could enhance the democratic process, participatory democracy in particular. How would he respond to the concerns of some that the work involved may not be entirely appropriate for a parliamentary sub-committee?

Mr. David Lowe

The Deputy will forgive me, but I do not have the competence to talk about this committee's constitutional position. I do not wish to become involved in such a constitutional matter. However, in a country in which universal suffrage is exercised and Parliament has the power to take decisions and adopt legislation, it should be understood Parliament is not in a position to divest itself of powers unnecessarily or unwillingly, particularly where the fundamental rights of citizens are at stake. If petitions are presented to the committee which it considers are related to the rights of the members of society, there should be no problem with the committee investigating them. However, where it should draw the line is where the same issues are before a court or another competent body. In that case, one must act with respect and deference towards the other bodies which have not been given that specific legal competence and responsibility. That aside, it is up to Parliament to establish its own rules and I am sure the committee will be able to do this. Clearly, it will need to be in a position where it can dismiss petitions that are not serious and which have no real substance or which may even be offensive. No one in his or her right mind would criticise Parliament for taking this action. However, where a citizen believes his or her rights have been affected, it will be very difficult to turn away. According to paragraph 51 of the Lisbon treaty, the charter of fundamental rights is only applicable when it deals with the actual application of Community law. However, a number of fundamental principles are also established in the charter. Citizens in this country voted - successfully in the end - on these principles. The charter also has a role to play in circumstances of this sort.

Chairman

My understanding is that the committee will have three roles to perform. The first of these, namely, the investigative role, will be determined by the constitutional amendment. It is in this context that much of the discussion and debate will take place. The committee's second role relates to oversight and will involve the Ombudsman. Our third role which relates to petitions is separate from the others. We will be able to carry out investigations in respect of petitions received. However, these investigations will be conducted on a non-judicial basis and the powers relating to our primary investigative role will not apply. In essence, there is a separation between our roles relating to investigations, oversight and petitions. I understand the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament is non-judicial in nature and cannot compel individuals to appear-----

Mr. David Lowe

That is correct.

Chairman

-----or disclose documentation.

Deputy Derek Nolan

I thank Mr. Lowe for his presentation. Perhaps County Kilkenny requires an investigation in its own right, particularly in the light of all the bad-mouthing to which it is being subjected today. Deputy John Paul Phelan might have something to say about this.

Are the investigations carried out by the European Parliament's petitions committee performed by the staff of the committee or are its members involved? Does the investigative process involve writing to the relevant Departments or governments and obtaining information? Mr. Lowe's committee receives 2,000 petitions and investigates a large number of matters. In that context, is he in a position to provide a breakdown of the number of staff involved in carrying out individual investigations and the average cost of an investigation. How many staff are attached to the secretariat of the petitions committee?

Mr. David Lowe

The way we operate is that the secretariat is competent to investigate issues, but certainly in respect of priority issues, we become more actively involved. Owing to the number of petitions we receive, we actually rely extensively, for a preliminary investigation, on the European Commission regarding admissible petitions in circumstances where we believe it can provide us with more authoritative views on the specific aspects of particular directives which may apply in respect of any given petition. Under the terms of our procedures, the Commission would be requested to provide us with preliminary assessments. The entire point of discussing matters within a committee is that the members - their parliamentary assistants or parties may be assisting them in certain circumstances - can have an input. The secretariat does not develop a ready-made package of solutions. The beauty of the system is that it requires and involves that the work be done by the members of the committee in order that a sensible and proper recommendation will ultimately be arrived at. It may be the case that on a particular matter a consensus will develop that the committee has done as much as it can and that, in the light of the answers it has obtained and the information at its disposal, it needs to bring its deliberations to a close. The members work in that way.

In the context of resources, I take the opportunity presented by Deputy Nolan's question to refer not only to human resources but also to those of a technical nature which are at our disposal. There are about 18 staff working in the secretariat. As a result of the linguistic requirements relating to our work, some six of our administrators operate across a broad range of languages. There is also an important group of secretarial staff, the members of which work directly with administrators but also on a more horizontal level. The latter is the case as a result of the enormous volume of correspondence generated by the petitions process. It is not just the petitions that reach us. We must also deal with follow-up correspondence and everything else. Our output last year amounted to 6,000 letters, if not more. That is more than all of the other European Parliament's committees put together. We need to have a system in place, therefore, to deal with model letters and other procedures. We operate with a secretariat of modest size, particularly when one considers the complexity of a multilingual parliament.

I realise there are serious limitations on the availability of human resources within this Parliament. I know that this presents a particular difficulty. For a committee to operate successfully, it is an essential requirement that there be a marriage between the active membership of the committee which has democratic legitimacy and a non-partisan professional secretariat which knows where to source information and how to channel it to members, while also organising committee work, arranging fact-finding visits, etc. Members can do the arithmetic, but it would be extremely difficult for this committee to proceed on the basis that one man or one woman and his or her dog could support it in its work. The committee will be considering issues on an extremely broad basis.

I hope the Chairman will forgive me, but I neglected to answer one of the questions posed earlier on relations with other parliamentary committees. In the European Parliament the Petitions Committee endeavours to work with the other parliamentary committees. However, the role of most of the latter committees is generally legislative in nature. With one or two exceptions, unlike our committee, they do not often consider matters relating to implementation of European Union law. Nevertheless, we provide them with information on our work in order to link them into it. As the secretariat does a great deal of this work, there is a need to have the type of backup to which I refer if this committee is to do its work properly. In Finland our committee was referred to as the "directive detectives". This is because, collectively, we are trying to come to terms with issues on an investigative level but without having access to the entire panoply of judicial links, being obliged to pay for the services of barristers and so forth. Ours is a non-judicial remedy and our operation is as light and inexpensive as possible. However, it is necessary to have the essential requirements provided via the symbiosis involving the work of the staff, on the one hand, and that of the elected members, on the other.

On the technical aspects, we developed a system called e-PETI or e-petitions. Our system is not available on the Internet but is, rather, a management tool. It is not just available to me in order that I might organise and be able to search petitions by subject or arrange our agenda, it is also available on the European Parliament's intranet site and every member of the committee has full access to original petitions, follow-up correspondence, relevant press cuttings and everything else relating to such petitions, including when they were last discussed in committee, when particular petitions were received, and the names and addresses of petitioners. All of this information is available on our e-PETI system which is powered by software we developed after one hell of a struggle with the IT service of the European Parliament. This committee is going to require such a system because it will prove to be an extremely important tool in ensuring its work will be carried out with absolute transparency, that nothing will be hidden and that everything will be available to members as and when they require it.

The only proviso I would add in respect of our system is that it contains a privacy link. Information on petitions from citizens can be extremely sensitive and those citizens have a right to the protection of their personal privacy. When people send petitions to the European Parliament's Petitions Committee by electronic means, they can tick a box to indicate whether they want their names to be withheld, whether they would like their petitions to be treated confidentially and so on. This is an important consideration, particularly in the context of ensuring people do not find their names spread all over the Internet or the newspapers without having given prior consent in this regard. If a third party requests access to a petition, the rule is we do not grant such access without the authorisation of the petitioner. We exercise a little subtle judgment in this regard, but the general rule is that as a safeguard we do not distribute petitions to third parties without the consent of petitioners. On one occasion when dealing with a Lloyds' case, one of the Lloyds' names who was registered by us as "Madame X" was subpoenaed - even though we did not give our consent to give the Lloyds' names in London - by a court which demanded that she divulge the contents of her petition in court. There was no way in the normal course under our procedures that it should have even had access to her name. There was a big issue with the British Government as to how it got hold of her name. One needs to be very careful about questions of privacy and data protection.

Senator Susan O’Keeffe

I apologise for having had to briefly leave the meeting for a vote in the Seanad. If the questions I am about to raise have already been asked, I ask Mr. Lowe to indicate that. I am sure other speakers have thanked him and I too would like to thank him for his time and for the detail he is providing for us. It is very useful.

How does his committee publicise its existence and activities? Does it have a timeframe for the completion of petitions? Does it specify that if a petition is not completed within one year, two years or three years, that it will have to close it? Some of the issues Mr. Lowe raised are complex and, by their nature, involve many people and stakeholders that the committee has to invite to give information and so on. The committee must have had some cases that have gone on for a considerable period of time.

Mr. David Lowe

Too long.

Senator Susan O’Keeffe

Yes. If there is a timeframe for the competition of a petition, is there then a point at which the committee has reached its quota of capability? In other words, does the committee indicate it has got enough and must close the petitions for now and will reopen them again when it has found its feet? Otherwise, I suspect, it would be inundated. Given that the committee has such a number of live petitions, it answers some of them promptly but it must take a long time for it to answer others.

Mr. David Lowe

It is a real dilemma, of that there is no doubt. We do not have a timeframe. Petitions are the only thing that are carried over from one Legislature to the next. Whereas any legislative work which is not completed at the end of the term of a Legislature falls, petitions, according to the Parliament's rules of procedure, are carried over. There is a continuity there for better or worse.

The reason we often wait a long time before closing certain petitions is that if there is an infringement procedure, it can take three or four years to be dealt with. We do not close a petition until we know what the European Court of Justice has had to say about it and in certain cases we will want to see if the member state concerned is applying what the court has said or whether it will come back on that and be fined and so on. There are objective reasons on that basis as to why some petitions can take much longer than others to be closed.

Everyone has an interest in closing a petition as soon as possible but often, against the advice of the secretariat, members will still want to keep petitions open. The members will come to experience that, so they should be warned. It does not pay anybody to keep a petition open indefinitely if it is not going anywhere, but we have to work on the basis of a decision of members, and members sometimes decide, for whatever reason, that they do not want to close it. We have to handle that situation as diplomatically as we can.

Regarding publicity, I do not look for it. We get it for good reasons and for bad reasons. When we make mistakes we might get some bad publicity. We often get very good local, positive publicity when we have done a good job with local communities. However, our place on the Parliament website is pathetic - it is invisible. One has to hunt to find the word "petitions" in spite of resolutions made in plenary session. We have a serious difficulty in ensuring that the Administration prioritises our committee, as it has been requested by the committee to do on a number of occasions, to ensure that we have a properly developed web portal.

To use our Scottish colleagues as an example of a successful development in that respect, the siting of its committee is visible and to a certain extent interactive where people can be advised to refer to other people if necessary instead of to our committee. We have been seeking this for years. That is not only publicity but essential proper access for citizens to the committee. Within the website of the Irish Parliament, the members will need to pay attention to that and clearly flag the competences and the role of its committee and provide the proper links, electronic access and so on.

We have also developed Facebook and Twitter access in recent months. We saw what happened in north Africa recently, therefore, we know we can do it as well. Contact through such access is growing. One cannot submit petitions through such access but it allows people to comment. We post material on Facebook and it allows considerable informal content in that respect to develop and allows for interaction. In a space of just a few months a few thousand people logged on to our Facebook link and made contact via Twitter as well. We can twitter links to reports of the committee or information such as that. All the committee's work is web-streamed, although not as beautifully as here I might add, and people can follow it on their computers. That is important for the petitions process because not all petitioners can come to the committee. Petitioners, even if they are in Malaga or elsewhere, can follow what is happening on their laptops. If they note that Members representing them did not even turn up for a meeting, or if they did they did not ask certain questions, the petitioners can give us such feedback. There is that sort of element which new technology brings, with all its advantages and disadvantages, to the work of the committee. Sadly, we do not have a budget for publicity. We do not have the ability to publicise our work other than by word of mouth and through the normal media channels. It is probably just as well but I regret that there is not more clarity on the Parliament's website, as it should be its responsibility to ensure that citizens know their rights and have proper access.

Senator Tony Mulcahy

Mr. Lowe is very welcome. I apologise for also having to briefly leave the meeting for a vote in the Seanad. I wish to raise two issues, one of which relates to the judicial and tribunal scenarios. He said that the committee does not take petitions on issues when they have been determined by a tribunal or the judiciary. He referred in his presentation to people who petition on disability issues. If people petition on a disability issue of concern, is that given special preference? I thought that is what he intimated.

Mr. David Lowe

I mentioned the case of multiple sclerosis, which is a disability. We deal with questions of disability. One is being treated currently under the urgency procedure because the UN is due to adopt a convention on disability and mobility rights, the exact title of which I cannot remember, in November. We have had a petition from the association of blind people. They wrote to us ten days or few weeks ago and that correspondence was received just prior to a meeting of the committee. The co-ordinators decided that we need to take a position on it and to get the Parliament to take a view on it before the UN decides to try to get member states active. We picked that up very quickly and members are naturally sympathetic to see what can be done within the terms of our responsibilities on such issues.

Regarding the judicial question, we do not allow ourselves to question a decision of the courts, tribunals or bodies that are duly constituted with a specific legal requirement. It is more of a dilemma when we are faced, particularly from two or three members or some of the new member states, with a case where it is the judicial system that is the subject of a petition because of corruption, lack of impartiality, political involvement and so on. From the secretariat's point of view we have to be extremely careful because we do not wish to be seen to intervene in the competence of member states but we know that the Commission is also concerned about that and therefore we tend to look at such issues related to the judicial system more specifically.

Property is also an issue that often crosses the line between something that needs to be done through the courts and something on which Parliament can take a political position. Under the terms of the treaty, the system of property ownership is not the competence of the EU. It does not say anything about the rights to legitimately acquired property. We function on the basis of the rights that people have under the European Convention on Human Rights, which is assimilated in the Lisbon treaty. We use this as a basis to look into property issues when manifested on a grand scale, as we saw happen particularly in Spain, on which our committee has done an enormous amount of work to try to protect people's property rights against the sort of laws that have been approved in Spain which allow property developers to confiscate land without due process. Those opposed to this said it was not our area of competence and that the issue should be dealt with by the courts. Others say the courts have taken six years to deal with it and the case has still not come up. We take a political decision to get involved. The committee is a political environment; it is not a legal environment, and members ultimately act in the interests of their constituents. That is why the political process of petitions is so important and it is important for members to have an additional opportunity and institutional responsibility to make that link to demonstrate to citizens that parliamentary institutions are worth the money, as they do act in people's interests. They are not just getting on with meeting bankers and other senior people, they are also concerned about what is happening on the ground.

Chairman

Ceapaim go bhfuilimid ag teacht chuig deireadh na ceisteanna. An bhfuil aon cheist ag éinne eile?

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I welcome Mr. Lowe and thank him for his contribution. He touched on an interesting subject, namely, what had happened in Spain with landowners affected in an adverse way. Out of curiosity, what were the most interesting or challenging cases dealt with by the committee?

Mr. David Lowe

With due respect to the people I know in Spain, the Spanish issue has been one of overriding importance for the committee, not only because of the breadth of the subject and the number of nationals from so many EU member states involved but also because it is an enormously complex issue where even within Spain, the constitutional structure and the division of authority between the central government and autonomous regions are such that there is almost permanent deadlock on the issue. We have been on three fact-finding visits. We met people in several regions of Spain, but it is the coastal areas that are most affected, with the areas around Madrid. We have confronted Ministers, consulted regional presidents, visited people's gardens and looked into their swimming pool where a motorway is due to go through. We have seen the houses built on land in the back gardens of petitioners on which the promoters made €700,000 profit and the owners of the land received absolutely nothing. They even had to pay for the privilege of having street lights down the road next to them.

That is the sort of issue with which the Petitions Committee has been dealing. In a way, we have won the argument in a number of municipalities. The big urbanisation projects have been abandoned. Unfortunately, however, the number of municipalities in which that has happened is few. One in particular is still suffering from an attack by developers who are claiming €2 million in compensation. The matter is immensely complicated, but it is something which is carried.

Senator O'Keeffe referred to publicity. The publicity received has been phenomenal. It has provided an opportunity for people to wake up and say they have rights. They have a parliament and it is standing up for them. A resolution went through at a plenary session at the end of a big and emotional debate in which the two major parties in Spain were both totally opposed to us even talking about it but the Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority that European citizens had the fundamental right to their legitimately acquired property. That is progress and something of which we can be proud.

Deputy Peter Mathews

Mr Lowe is welcome. I thank him for his presentation. He mentioned petitions and investigations in the areas of insurance and finance. He also mentioned Lloyds. Are the numbers increasing? Has there been a tsunami of such petitions?

Mr. David Lowe

There has not been a tsunami, but we have received quite a lot of petitions. Since the financial crisis developed a couple of years ago, they have hit us. On more recent petitions, we must bear in mind that the economic and monetary affairs committee of the Parliament is involved in the process of economic governance and that a legislative package is going through involving six specific directors, on which we are trying to reach a conclusion. Perhaps this relates to the issue of links with other committees. The Petitions Committee considered that in such an area and given that it was such a politically sensitive issue, which is far from finished - I had the privilege of listening to the debate in the House earlier on the EFSF - the economic and monetary affairs committee of the Parliament was the best place to deal with it. It has had untold meetings at all levels to try to find a solution. It has moved the agenda forward successfully, bearing in mind what many of our petitioners were saying. It has had the petitions forwarded to it. I cannot say whether it has taken them on board, but we have had co-operation with it.

Deputy Peter Mathews

It is an area in which the needle is now in the red.

Mr. David Lowe

Very much so, but there is an issue which links with the point made by Deputy Mathews about investigative committees. The Parliament does have a procedure to create investigative committees, but in that case it is not the Petitions Committee that does it. When duly constituted, they even have additional rights of access to documents and so on. Mairead McGuinness, MEP, was Chairman of one of the committees dealing with an investigation into the collapse of the Equitable Life Assurance Company. With her rapporteur from the United Kingdom, Ms Diana Wallis, after a year's work with a dedicated secretariat on that occasion, most of the members were also members of the Petitions Committee, but it was a separately constituted temporary committee which produced an extremely hard-hitting and perceptive report. In the European Parliament we do not mix the two.

Deputy Peter Mathews

I thank Mr. Lowe.

Chairman

The committee made a decision not to go to the European Parliament to carry out this level of our research owing to the austere climate and because there were fears at the time that perhaps our understanding would not be as comprehensive. We have gained a comprehensive understanding of how the committee works. On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Lowe for his input.

Mr. David Lowe

I hope I may be able to come back sometime to see how the committee is getting on. The Chairman of the Parliament's Petitions Committee, Mrs. Mazzoni, has insisted that I inform you and other members that you would always be welcome to come to Brussels whenever you felt it was suitable to do so. We would be very pleased to receive you.

Chairman

We appreciate that.

The joint committee went into private session at 5.20 p.m. and adjourned at 6.35 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 September 2011.