I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider a motion which has been referred by both Houses of the Oireachtas to the joint committee. The motion concerns a proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing for the period 2007-13 the specific programme Civil Justice as part of the general programme Fundamental Rights and Justice and its financing through EU packages. Members have been supplied with a copy of the briefing note. I ask the Minister to make a brief presentation.
Fundamental Rights and Justice Programme: Motion.
I thank the Chairman, and other members of the joint committee for inviting me and making time available to discuss the motion which concerns the exercise by the State of the option to take part in the adoption and application of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing for the period 2007-13 the specific programme Civil Justice as part of the general programme Fundamental Rights and Justice. The deadlines we have to meet are tight. For that reason the co-operation of the committee is much appreciated. The committee will recall that, as this is a measure to which the fourth protocol of the Amsterdam treaty applies, there is a three month period within which we must notify the President of the Council of our intention to opt into any discussions from the beginning. That period will expire on 12 October.
Members will be familiar with motions of the type under consideration. This is the 18th occasion on which the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas will have been sought for the State to exercise the option provided under the fourth protocol in respect of proposals for an EU legal instrument in the civil law area. I welcome the opportunity for the committee to make a direct contribution to these debates and look forward to hearing the views of its members.
The proposal for the decision under consideration establishes the legal basis for providing financial support from the budget of the European Community for certain activities in the area of civil judicial co-operation in the period 2007-13. I emphasise that this is not a substantive approximation measure. It is an enabling measure for money to be spent in studying and evaluating scope for change in this area. Therefore, we are not committing ourselves to any substantive change in the law; we are merely providing for a budgetary mechanism to allow money to be made available to fund research in all of these areas. It is one element in an overall package presented by the European Commission which aims to establish for that period a framework programme on fundamental rights and justice.
The overall budget being suggested for the fundamental rights and justice framework programme is €543 million for the period 2007-13. As the committee will appreciate, that is a lot of money. Of that total, €109 million has been identified as appropriate for implementation of the civil justice programme. In other words, if one takes those seven years inclusively, there will be between €10 million and €20 million every year to support research, events, seminars and studies in this area. These figures are necessarily tentative pending future agreement on the overall budgetary framework. The civil justice programme is effectively the successor to an existing programme into which Ireland has opted and which will expire at the end of 2006.
A key aim of the proposal is to establish a programme which will help to realise the objectives set by the Hague programme entitled, Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, adopted by the European Council in November 2004. It has a number of broad objectives, notably promoting judicial co-operation with the aim of contributing to the creation of a genuine European area of justice in civil matters based on mutual confidence and recognition; fostering access to justice, thereby facilitating individuals and businesses in asserting their rights throughout the European Union; and improving contacts between legal, judicial and administrative authorities and the legal profession. These objectives are intended to be achieved through a variety of actions, including specific actions taken by the Commission such as studies, seminars and the development of databases. Relevant transnational projects undertaken by at least three member states and activities undertaken by non-governmental organisations are also covered by the decision.
To implement the programme the Commission will adopt a series of annual work programmes specifying in each case the objectives, thematic priorities and a description of accompanying measures covering areas such as information and communication, preparation, implementation, monitoring, checking and evaluation of projects, policies, programmes and legislation. The annual work programmes will set out the maximum rate of co-financing for projects in respect of which grants from the Community will be available. In assessing and evaluating proposals for grant award account will be taken of the degree to which the proposal conforms to the annual work programme, the quality of the proposed action in terms of conception, organisation, presentation and expected result, the amount of Community financing requested and the impact of the expected results of the proposed action.
An important aspect of any public programme, especially one that involves expenditure of funds, is the element of monitoring and accountability. I stated priorities would be specified in an annual work programme which will derive from priorities set by the European Council. An advisory committee will ensure the programme is set in conjunction with member states. Programme beneficiaries will have to submit technical and financial reports on the progress of work. Beneficiaries will also be required to provide a final report within three months of completion of the project. The Commission will determine the form and required content of the reports. It is obliged to ensure that when actions financed under the decision are implemented, the financial interests of the Community are protected against fraud and corruption. It is also obliged to ensure satisfactory progress is made on projects. It will make an interim report on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of the programme in 2011 and on its continuation in 2012. An ex-post evaluation report will be made to the Council and the European Parliament by no later than the end of 2014.
The Government is of the view that it is important for Ireland to respond positively to the tabling of this proposal by exercising the right to opt into discussions before the deadline of 12 October. Not only is it important that we should respond positively at this time but it is also important to have full participation in the activities which will be financed over the relevant budgetary period. In that way Ireland can take advantage of the benefits to be derived from informed participation in activities aimed at promoting judicial co-operation and improving mutual knowledge of the legal and judicial systems of the various member states and third countries.
I very much hope the committee will support the proposal that Ireland opt into the discussions on this instrument. I look forward to hearing the comments of members on the proposal.
In principle, I do not oppose the motion. However, we should examine such proposals more deeply and I would prefer to have more time to do so. The Minister will be aware of my interest in getting value for money. While I will not cover old ground, I will apply the same approach to this proposal. Essentially, we are talking about substantial amounts of money — more than €500 million for the entire programme and more than €100 million for the specific programme we are being asked to approve today.
In general, the specific objectives could at best be described as woolly. Given that we are discussing a figure of more than €100 million, has any consideration been given to whether this represents good value for money? It is stated the programme will improve the mutual knowledge of the legal and judicial systems of member states. As I presume this has been ongoing since the beginning of the programme, how much more improvement is being sought? Another objective is to improve information on the legal systems in place in the member states. I am not sure how different that is from the first one. Another objective is to evaluate the general conditions necessary to develop mutual confidence.
I am unimpressed by the lack of specific hard objectives in the programme. The fact that it is European should not mean we should willy-nilly accept what in some ways amounts to a lot of bureaucratic waffle. Is the programme worthwhile? As a small member state, one of our roles should be to raise such questions, although I am not standing in the way of the approach adopted by the Minister. As I understand the pressure he is under to get this through within the next few days, I will not attempt to block it. However, we should take a much more hard-nosed approach from the point of view of ensuring the moneys being spent achieve clear and specific objectives.
I am pro-European, possibly much more so than the Minister. However, the criticism of the European Union is in some instances justified. Those of us who want to see the Union moving forward need to ensure, in particular, that EU expenditure is seen to produce value for money.
The Minister might spell out specifically what he hopes to see us achieve as a nation or as an EU member state under the programme over the period 2007 to 2013. Have we established a series of specific objectives? What are our priorities? I appreciate that this may not directly trouble the Minister in terms of his electoral fortunes but at this stage it would be useful to have an idea of the approach we may adopt as an EU member state under the programme in the next few years. Sometimes we go along willy-nilly with European programmes simply because they are in place. We can influence them and introduce some hard-nosed objectivity in seeking a better outcome.
The Minister has tabled an interesting proposal. We are talking about a sizeable amount of money, yet it is difficult to see what proportion will be allocated to this country. Is it to be allocated on the basis of projects and programmes and research proposals from institutes such as universities or the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Who can make a specific proposal? May local residents' organisations or we, as a committee, do so?
What has happened to the existing programme which will expire at the end of next year? I imagine this will be our starting point and that the programme before us is the successor to the civil justice programme. I was not aware there was such a programme and I am not aware of any outcomes. The Minister might inform us what moneys were allocated to the programme and what the outcome was. Has an evaluation been made? Will we proceed on the basis of that evaluation, making specific proposals for the period 2007 to 2013?
With regard to specifics, can protocols be put in place to deal with the various EU jurisdictions which do not appear to share common ground, particularly concerning legal and judicial matters? Take the example of when a tragedy occurs in an EU country and nobody knows when the remains of somebody who died will be released by the authorities. It appears to depend on individual decisions being taken by a particular member of the judiciary. As a result, the Department of Foreign Affairs and various other persons are running around trying to find out what will happen. Could there be a programme to examine the issue of establishing common protocols for all 25 member states in order that when a major trauma or tragedy occurs to people travelling between the different jurisdictions, there would be a mechanism to short circuit or speed up the normal procedures? That does not happen at present. Could something of that nature be considered under this programme?
We are talking about promoting justice in civil matters. Can we deal with matters such as immigration and the manner in which the judiciary and authorities in general deal with issues that arise? Can we examine such issues? We need a more specific outline from the Minister of where we intend to foster access to justice and who will benefit. Are we talking about a raft of studies, seminars and consultancies being established with nobody really knowing where we are going with these matters? If we give approval for this programme — it is difficult to see why we should not be part of the process — this committee should be part of the body which would determine what our input should be with regard to civil justice matters and in terms of access to freedom, security and justice in the European Union.
We should not simply buy a pig in a poke. We should know who will make all these decisions and where the decisions will be made. If we approve this money being made available, we should know what the projects will be and who will be the beneficiaries. This committee should conduct a series of hearings with various bodies involved in civil justice. There are many such organisations which would like to access funding for projects in which they are involved. There is a budget of €109 million for all the countries involved. I hope the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will not simply come up with some pet projects, to which we will give the nod and which will proceed without referring back to this committee or anybody else in the country as to what would be appropriate matters to enhance access to justice in this country and elsewhere.
The Minister is correct that this is part of a broader fundamental rights and justice programme.
Over the last year I have argued, both at meetings involving the Whips and in the House, that we need a full debate on the Hague programme, which replaced the Tampere programme. As Deputy Costello has said, we have never had such a debate and that is the problem. We have not asked whether the programme is successful, what its outcomes will be and whether it is worthwhile. We have signed up to the Hague programme without having a proper debate. We should have a proper debate, even at this late stage, rather than having motions introduced in a sporadic manner which address individual aspects of the programme, such as the one before us now.
The motion seems fine on its own merits. It addresses matters of funding and Ireland might benefit from a package covering research into aspects of our civil justice programme. However, the motion is interwoven with various other motions which are sent to committees and back to the House without debate. This is the only forum in which such a debate can take place.
There are certain parts of the programme as a whole with which I have problems. It contains an action plan and a timetable for the implementation of the fundamental rights and justice programme but I believe that the approach adopted is backwards. The items that have been frontloaded deal with judicial co-operation in civil, commercial and criminal matters, the transfer of sentenced prisoners and the mutual recognition of non-custodial pre-trial supervision measures. The aforementioned issues are all scheduled to be dealt with this year whereas the fundamental rights which supposedly make up part of the programme will be dealt with at a later date, expected to be 2007 and 2008.
The fundamental rights deal with the setting of minimum standards relating to the taking of evidence, to pre-trial detention procedures, to policing and quality control in forensic laboratories as well as a number of related areas. Such matters should have been frontloaded in the timetable and I disagree with the approach that has been adopted. However, we have not had an opportunity to tease out that argument. While the motion carries a deadline of 12 October, there were several months in which we could have taken the opportunity to discuss matters in more detail, most particularly in September. That did not happen.
There are deadlines within the Hague programme which were tied in with the expected acceptance of the EU constitution. Those deadlines have not altered despite the fact that the constitution has been rejected. Perhaps the deadlines involved are satisfactory as far as the members are concerned. A meeting is due to take place in Brussels on 17 and 18 October, as part of the programme aimed at creating an area of freedom, security and justice. This parliamentary meeting on judicial and police co-operation and national parliaments will be discussing the acceptance of the motion before us, the deadline for which is 12 October, and how it will be implemented. While participants at that meeting are expected to include six parliamentarians from each of the member states, I do not know whether Ireland will be represented or even if the Minister knows the situation in that regard. I do not recall the matter coming before this committee.
We have received a large number of invitations to parliamentary committees and activities throughout Europe and the world, and we are not at this point in a position to attend that particular one.
If we are not, this is a major shift. The Irish legal system is different from other legal systems, apart from the British, in terms of its workings. Therefore, such meetings are important and we must attend them if we are to play our full role in the Hague programme. There is much indifference, and it is difficult to see how this will work in terms of harmonisation. If this is adopted, I hope we will attract a substantial part of this funding to ensure that proper research and studies will be done. This is important because of the difference between our system and the rest of Europe and so that the implications for the changes being proposed in the Hague and other programmes are fully understood by Members of this House and the public.
I thank the Deputies for their observations and have sympathy with some of the observations. I emphasise that we are dealing here with civil law, not criminal law. Therefore, many of the points to which DeputyÓ Snodaighreferred concerning criminal law fall outside the scope of this discussion.
I will engage in some crude arithmetic. We are talking about €109 million over a seven year inclusive period, which I estimate to be €15 millionper annum to be spent on this programme for each of those seven years. The Commission gets between two thirds and three quarters of these moneys to run its own seminars and studies, and member states' initiatives receive between one third and one quarter. If past experience indicates the future, that leaves €5 million per annum for all the member states to spend on this area. If one divides that by 25 member states, one is talking about an average of €200,000 per member state.
Can we make a contribution at all?
The Minister could buy one acre of agricultural land in north Dublin for that.
Deputy O'Keeffe will be glad to hear that it gets worse. If one takes into account that Ireland has a population of 4 million and some member states have 70 million or 80 million, the chance of Ireland getting more than €40,000 or €50,000 per annum under this scheme is limited. It all depends on the quality of proposals put forward for seminars and studies. A sum of €40,000 or €50,000 would not be inconsiderable sum but a vast sum of money will not be made available to the research organisations of Ireland to conduct research into European law projects.
Is the Minister happy to have two thirds of the money being spend by the Commission without any control over it?
The Commission is more likely to approve studies it is keen on than to allow the member states to take all the money and do the research themselves. I ask members to look to previous experience in which the divide was roughly two thirds to one third. If that happened Ireland would be doing very well if we had projects of a sufficient quality to attract funds of the order of €40,000 or €50,000 per annum under this scheme. In case people think we are spending hundreds of millions of euro, Ireland's share of this, pro rata is likely to be small. Why, in these circumstances, are we opting into it? To opt out would send a very bad signal.
Why are we opting into the scheme in these circumstances? First, to opt out and say we are not interested would be a bad signal, as it would tell people in Ireland who were interested in carrying out research in these areas that Ireland is not bothered by any of this, which would not be a wise course of action to take. Second, even from a sensible self-interested point of view, Ireland could participate in studies on aspects of civil law with a view to getting real value. For example, a number of member states such as Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom could engage in a study on the likely effects on international commerce of substituting the Anglo-American system of contract law with a European system. Many would see such a change as a bad move, for American businessmen know Irish contract law is something they have effectively learned in American law schools and is not radically different in any shape or form. On a point of simple self-interest, this is an example of how member states with this perspective might be able to get a project up and running that would be of value in preserving their systems and querying the wisdom of an approximation measure in future.
We are not talking about large sums of, say, €40,000 or €50,000, on a very good day, each year over seven years for people in Ireland who want to participate in programmes or other member states' seminars and the like. I do not know whether the joint committee could draw down some of this money as the State would be told this is its obligation. However, the committee could encourage people in academic terms in the private sector to commission programmes of interest. Likewise, the Judicial Studies Institute, a State-sponsored body in Ireland and part of the Courts Service, would be in a position to use some of these funds to participate in relevant seminars. When one sees huge figures of €500 million and does the basic arithmetic, one suddenly realises the amount is not all that much.
It would be a major sub-division.
It is the type of money that might get one a garage in Ranelagh, not to mention an acre in a certain other area of County Dublin.
It would be one quarter of an acre by the Minister's pricing.
Does the Minister know what happened in the previous programme? We would like to know.
Ireland did not draw down significantly from the funding. No applications were made. Ireland thought about it but it was felt that greater benefit would be derived from participating in other people's seminars, conferences and information sessions rather than organising our own in Dublin. One could not organise a medium-sized conference for €40,000 or €50,000. Our view was that it was better to send people to observe the activities of others.
For travel purposes.
Like all member states, we benefited from the programme of activities carried out across Europe by the Commission, enabling these issues to be discussed. Ireland has participated to a considerable extent in civil justice conferences organised by other member states. The opportunity has also arisen for members of the Judiciary to take an active role in these conferences. For example, the president of the Law Reform Commission, Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness, took part in a German family law conference, which was a valuable activity. We are not talking about an enormous amount of money and we must decide whether to spend it on one or two conferences in Dublin or send people across Europe to participate in other conferences that are taking place. Thus far, we have taken the view that it is better for us to see what people are doing rather than say, on a selfish national basis, that we will have our own conference and invite a variety of people to come to us.
If we have an idea for a project and want to involve a number of other countries, does this money come from the European Commission or is it part of the member states individually?
We must have at least three member states to put up a proposal to the European Commission under the scheme and we would have to put up matching funds. The exact proportion of these funds is something which would be decided in light of each project.
Would Ireland have to negotiate with the other two members before it put forward its project?
Yes.
Could Ireland put forward a project and invite two member states to join it?
It would be possible to do this and Ireland could take the initiative and ask member states to join with it but the idea is that for any activity to attract matching funding under this scheme, three member states must participate in it. The real question that must be asked is whether the strategy we have adopted heretofore is the right one. Is it preferable to go and see what other people are talking about, report back and be conscious of developments in other countries or should we pour money into this ourselves and bring people to Ireland to discuss these issues? It is not a thing about which one can be chauvinistic. A conference on family law issues is as good in one country as another if it is dealing with European issues.
It appears that our meeting today amounts to much ado about nothing because what began with a figure of over €500 million for just a framework programme ultimately boils down to less than €50,000 per year for the State. The Minister would not be able to buy a garden in north County Dublin for that figure. On a serious note, it does not take from my concerns about the use or possible abuse of money at European level. Given that Ireland is a contributor to the European Commission budget and a member state, if the Commission is spending two thirds of this money, some eye should be kept on it to see whether there is any value for money. If the Commission wishes to spend all this money, which is where the bulk of the money will be spent, will there be any evaluation of the outcomes?
I am sorry to deprive Deputy O'Keeffe of the opportunity to pose as the person who is going to stop wasteful expenditure.
I have already done it.
The second point he made about whether two thirds or one third is an appropriate balance is a point that can be made in the course of the discussions on this programme but if we opt out of it, we cannot even make this point.
Does Deputy Ó Snodaigh have a question to pose?
Other than to say that at some stage, it would be worthwhile having a full debate on the Hague programme because this issue is part of it.
It is a different matter.
The Hague programme is a different matter but Deputy Ó Snodaigh is correct in the sense that the non-ratification of the draft EU constitution will require this programme to be re-examined because, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh noted, some of its content anticipated and presumed that the particular constitutional arrangements would be altered to accommodate its contents.
I wish to return to something I mentioned initially about the possibility of some kind of arrangement being made or some project being established to try and establish protocols between different member states regarding serious situations that arise from time to time. This is particularly important now that the European Union has expanded and many Irish people go abroad for holidays or to buy property or engage in other commercial transactions. The same is true of the numbers of people coming into Ireland to work and so on.
A tragedy, such as the recent case in Spain, drags on without particular guidelines for dealing with the situation. It is left to the member of the judiciary responsible for the case to decide when and how remains may be released and whether they may leave the country. Meanwhile, the grieving family may not be able to make decisions on many aspects of the situation. Insurance problems can arise. For example, I know of someone in hospital in Romania who cannot return here because the person needs to be accompanied by a doctor but the insurance company will not cover this and insists the family must pay.
This issue involves many aspects of civil law as well as procedures which the Department of Foreign Affairs must handle while its staff scurries around the place where these incidents may occasionally have occurred. This entails serious expenditure for all concerned. Families often have to travel to these countries. It would be useful to have a transnational project, perhaps between three member states.
Some research should be undertaken and guidelines drawn up that would be common to all countries such that if something happened an Irish person would know whom to contact, what the outcome would be and how to deal with the situation and so on. Does the Minister envisage that proposal as a suitable subject for research? It would yield specific results and should not be too expensive. It would involve bringing the various justice Ministers together, or at least some expert personnel from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Foreign Affairs to draw up a protocol on which all the member states could agree, in order to find a mechanism to facilitate those processes.
I am aware of the background to the case that affected Deputy Costello's constituents, and the tragedy visited on them. I sympathise fully with them and him on those circumstances.
It is frequently a nightmare for bereaved families to find themselves in a position where they do not understand or get clarity on when they can make funeral arrangements and so on. That is an issue which member states should consider. We are dealing, however, with civil law and that case for example, would be an aspect of Spanish criminal law investigations from which we would be distant.
There are many other areas where there is room for initiatives in European law. One which has occurred to me is what happens if someone is acquitted of an offence by reason of insanity and skips from the jurisdiction to another. I do not think the European arrest warrant applies in that case because the person is not wanted for trial. There is no system in Europe to return such people to the jurisdiction from which they have absconded. While one would need to be careful in creating an automatic system of return in such a case, to have no system could be equally unsatisfactory. That is just one example to occur to me in the last year on this subject.
The legal base of the criminal justice programme is Articles 31 and 34 of the Treaty on European Union, otherwise known as the Treaty of Amsterdam. It is currently more or less limited to framework decisions, common actions and common decisions. The Deputy is referring to matters that are for us to operate. In that area, as it generally operates on the basis of unanimity, there would also be an issue there. Funding under this programme would not apply to criminal issues arising from the Treaty on European Union.
In general, the promotion of co-operation and dissemination of information are highly desirable. I noticed that one of the first objectives is ensuring legal certainty and improving access to justice, a matter to which Deputy Costello referred. Is there any potential within the programme to conduct a cost comparison of accessing justice in civil cases across the Community, perhaps correlated with the cost of living in each country? Second, given the negative comments of the Competition Authority regarding the legal profession, and the failure to ensure competition, particularly among barristers, because of the operations of the Law Library, could the programme be used to inject such competition into the system? The Minister will probably agree that it is desirable.
The Commission would not fund a purely national investigation into a competition issue. Money is not the issue. I remind members that I have commissioned a report on costs in legal cases, and the body working on that report, which I imagine I will have within six weeks or so, is chaired by Mr. Paul Haran, the former Secretary General of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who I was glad to see was recently made chief executive of the College of Business and Law at University College Dublin, proving that there is life after that part of the public service. He is also on the board of the Bank of Ireland. It is in that context that the issues raised by Senator Walsh will be addressed. I am acutely conscious of the fact that entry costs regarding litigation are prohibitive for many people. I had the opportunity of discussing that with a judge from another country yesterday at the opening of the law term in Dublin. The problem is by no means confined to Ireland but is very serious for those who get caught up in litigation, particularly when they have assets that can be devoured by it. The Senator should take heart from the fact that I have a report coming to me, and I regard dealing with it as a priority.
Some former eastern bloc countries that have joined the European Union have a different system of remuneration. A cross-Community comparison might be useful and not only in our interest but that of the EU as a whole. There is a need to tackle that issue and make changes. If we are interested in the administration of justice, there must be access for all rather than on the basis of money.
That concludes our discussion. Is it agreed there should be no further debate on the matter by Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann? Agreed. Is the draft report agreed, subject to the insertion of details regarding attendance and contributors to the discussion? Agreed.
I thank the Minister and his official for attending today.