Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 24 Jul 2003

Vol. 1 No. 11

Business of Joint Committee.

Since the last meeting there have been a number of items of correspondence. The items received and circulated to members include the annual reports on accounts for 2002 received from the Pensions Board, which is a fairly substantial document. There is also a list of the decisions taken by the Sub-Committee on EU Scrutiny at the meeting of 10 July 2003. None of these documents has been referred to this committee for further scrutiny.

However, because of its significance, the committee has been asked to take particular note of one of the documents, COM [2003] 199, which deals with the right to move and reside freely within the member states of the European Union. A copy of the information note on this document was circulated to members with the agenda. Do the members wish formally to scrutinise this document? Deputy Connolly has proposed we should.

I believe we should. It is an important issue becoming more and more debated in public. When the EU started out, and prior to that the EEC, we prided ourselves on the idea that there would be free movement and there would not be any borders and so on, but that is not how things are panning out. I know there are good reasons, in relation to security and so on, but it is an issue we should look at, and I would like the opportunity to do so.

I agree. It is our duty.

As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business, Deputy Cassidy raised the question of the resources and personnel we need to assist us in carrying out this function. It is an important function and we cannot just glibly address it. There are some matters which are very significant, some of them highly technical and legal, and which carry a significant impact and import for individuals. It is no use later saying that we did not realise the import. That is what we are worried about. We did raise this issue and wrote to the Working Group of Committee Chairpersons about it some time ago. It is something we have to bring up.

I had this problem at the meetings of the committee I chair. We have about 35% of all the EU scrutiny from the various Government Departments, so it is a tough job for the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business. Deputies will pass legislation of a very serious nature over the lifetime of this Government, which has four more years to go, everything being equal. We put down a marker which was proposed by Deputy Howlin and seconded by Deputy Phil Hogan, to the effect that we would not discuss any EU scrutiny unless we got a consultant to assist us and to explain to us in minute detail the pros and cons of every part of EU scrutiny. We owe it to our constituents and to the Department that has placed its trust in us.

From a political point of view, one could appear on "Questions and Answers" or any public forum and be charged with passing legislation or EU scrutiny, without having been made fully aware of it. The material is arriving in half-stones to us and takes up an enormous amount of time. We have therefore got a retired senior civil servant, Mr. John Kissane, a brilliant man, to advise us on EU scrutiny, particularly in relation to agriculture, matters with which we are not greatly au fait, to be quite honest. This committee will find over the next four years that there will be certain EU scrutiny that will arrive in half-stones. Who has time to read 180 or 200 pages of documentation? The committee might well get two such documents between each meeting.

That is the course my committee has taken. We refused to discuss EU scrutiny until we got a consultant to advise us on it, and we went on with the insurance inquiry, but our committee has an enormous backlog of EU scrutiny awaiting clearance. This committee is now in the same position.

Deputy Cassidy is not a member of this committee. We have discussed this and we have made it quite clear that we members want an explanation from the Department, and want it to put matters in layman's terms, on the basis that we want to understand exactly what we are discussing. The Chairman took this up with his colleagues to see what resources would be made available for us. I would hope that we could do that.

Deputy Cassidy is right. We are lay people, not legal people, and we have not the resources and time to go through every bit of documentation. I can understand, in relation to the committee chaired by Deputy Cassidy, the kind of documentation that is coming in. Someone has to be there to sort it and bring the information before us. Deputy Cassidy is right in what he says. Something that we will adopt and support will, down the road, come before us, and the Department will say that the committee sanctioned and supported it, and we will all be hung out to dry. We need back-up. We may not have the same needs as Deputy Cassidys committee in that we may not have as much legislation to deal with, but we certainly need some back-up.

We have another item, COM [2003] 270. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has asked, peculiarly, that this document COM [2003] 270, which deals with service or general interest should be circulated to each member of the committee for observations. This is another matter we will have to address, if we have any observations. I am sure this document is before the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business.

The Chairman and many Deputies here are much more experiencedthan I am. I am just a first-time Deputy. Is this committee's alternative to bring in the senior officials in each Department to give the committee professional advice in public, live on television?

Yes, that is the normal thing. We did that with one particular document at this committee about four or five months ago. It was a pretty useful exercise. We decided that we would not make a decision on it, and it has now gone back. A number of other EU countries had to implement the particular regulation. We sent it back and decided not to make any decision until it was implemented at all EU levels, to see what impact it would have on an EU-wide basis. We found that very useful, and Deputy Cassidy is correct. There might therefore be different horses for different courses in relation to how we evaluate it. I take the Deputys point, but at the same time we do need assistance. Some of the material is very technical and detailed. I am a legal person myself, yet I find it very hard to comprehend some of the material.

In relation to this matter before us, we will certainly scrutinise it, and we will be asking to meet the relevant officials. We will make the case again to the Working Group of Committee Chairmen, of which the Deputy is a member, that we will have to get resources to ensure we have maximum help available. Deputy Cassidy is right in saying that something that we pass as a committee will come back to haunt us at some stage in the future.

The difficulty exists only between now and the end of the year. I am the Chairman of the Committee on Members' Interests as well. The Oireachtas Commission kicks in then. The Chairman makes an application to the Commission, which will allocate funds. We cannot continue to engage in EU scrutiny for the next four years without the proper back-up. It is a three or four-month problem from now to Christmas.

We will authorise the clerk to write again to the relevant person and indicate that this matter has again taken up the meeting in a very substantial way and echo the concern of members of the committee. It is reflected in other committees of which Deputy Cassidy is a member. In relation to document COM (2003) 199, we will request that the relevant official be brought to the next meeting so that we can give it the best analysis and evaluation we can, given the experience we bring to bear on it and within the limited resources we have. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have asked for observations in relation to document COM (2003) 270, which has been circulated to us. Have we had an opportunity of making any evaluation or observations on this significant document? This is only for the committee's observation. There are 62 pages. Service and general interest covers both market and non-market services, which public authorities class as being of general interest, subject to specific public service obligations. Transport, postal services, energy and communications are examples of services of general economic interest. Other activities subject to public service obligations are also included. It is a Green Paper, in effect, covering items of general interest. I believe this is one that we should be in a position to make observations on. There is no legal basis or treaty article underpinning this particular document. It is a Green Paper. All parties and institutions, including the European Parliament, have a right to make their observations. Nobody is delimited in making observations in it.

One of the points indicated at No. 14 is that there would not to be any direct implications for Ireland. However, it deals with services of general interest and as such contributes to the debate about the development and evolution of the provision of services and matters of general interest in the context of competition rules, public service obligations, the internal market and economic development. I believe the consultation phase continues until 15 September 2003, so I suppose we will have an opportunity until then to make observations. The difficulty is that we will not have a committee meeting until early September. What are the members' views on this? We probably could arrange a meeting early in September to deal with this aspect.

Yes. It would give us some time to digest it, get a report from the Department and whatever.

Can we seek assistance from the Department in relation to it?

We need to get observations from the Department. We do not want a 20-page document. We simply do not have the time or the resources. The Department should simplify it and say what are the pros and cons and point out what the situation is in relation to this blueprint. That would make it easier for us all. I believe we could have a meeting early in September.

I am sure the clerk will try to fit in an additional meeting for us. The next item relates to correspondence from Alan G. Byrne. We have noted this. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Item No. 4 is a report of a phone call regarding a visit to Ireland of a delegation from the European Parliament Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. It transcends two Departments, both Enterprise and Employment and Social and Family Affairs. The delegation would like to meet with this committee - and also the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business - for a day of discussion and to be briefed on relevant issues.

The possibility of a joint meeting with the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business was suggested, which would probably be prudent. However, there are some logistical problems in relation to this, because of the size of committee rooms. In the circumstances, it might be better if the delegation were to meet each of the committees for half a day, rather than spending a full day with both. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has suggested three possible dates: 6 and 7 October; 13 and 14 October; and 10 and 11 November. I believe 13 and 14 October are out because we are reviewing matters in relation to carers, which is our main study for this year. Do members wish to meet with the delegation? Is there any preference for the proposed dates, 6 and 7 October or 10 and 11 November?

I believe November would be better.

It is 10 and 11 November then. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Top
Share