Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities debate -
Wednesday, 19 Dec 1979

Visits to Brussels.

In connection with the suggestion that reports of meetings in Brussels attended by delegations from the Joint Committee be circulated, to Members I should like to state that the reason I put that forward was because it is not possible for all Members to be present at those meetings. Such reports would be useful to those who do not travel. My suggestion at the last meeting was taken up by Deputy Leonard and appeared to have the agreement of the meeting. In putting forward that suggestion again I should like to express the hope that the compiling of the reports would not involve too much work for the staff.

It would be wrong to say that it would be impossible to have such a report prepared but I must add that the usefulness of such a report on 19 December in relation to a discussion that took place on 4 October might be queried. However, when a delegation goes to Brussels, or anywhere else, we should contemplate the desirability of producing such a report. It might be that in relation to any particular visit it would be decided that it would not be part of the duty of the delegation to make a report through the Joint Committee which would fully express everything experienced by the Members. We must remember that there are matters which can be gathered from personal contact, to be repeated orally but not to be formalised in a document. We will have to look at each report at the time it is being prepared but the minutes of this meeting should record that the proposal is that future delegations should remember that those who send them would like to learn what knowledge they gained on their visit.

I support Senator Hussey's proposal. At the last meeting we discussed the possibility of going on further visits with a smaller representation. I should like to know if anything has come of that proposal. I understood there was a financial possibility and, in view of the rapid developments that are taking place at the European level, it is important that we keep in close touch. There was considerable support on the last occasion for the idea of Members of various Sub-Committees travelling to deal with areas that concerned them.

There was consideration of the structuring of the delegations and whether it would be better to have a certain number of Members of Sub-Committees rather than a random selection of all Members.

When one is tied to time in the course of one day it is important in some instances to be able to cater adequately with perhaps only one area. From the point of view of bringing a report home it is important that matters be teased out a bit better than they were on the last occasion, particularly in relation to the area of responsibility of my Sub-Committee.

At the last meeting the Chairman said that there was nearly £1,700 of our money left in the budget. When is the termination of the current budget? Is it the end of the calendar year?

Can we carry over unspent funds to next year?

We are coming up to Christmas with £1,700 not spent—something may be wrong in our organisation.

We always like to spend everything we get and more often we spend more than we get, but I do not think there is time to do it on this occasion.

Have we allocated for January?

We dealt the last time with Sub-Committees and no Sub-Committee has actually asked for a meeting in Brussels. However, the per skull cost of going to Brussels and back is a little over £3,000 for ten people. There will be a new provision of £5,000 in the Estimates for next year. Apart from that, £5,000 was sought and was given by the Minister for Finance this year. It was not specifically put in the Estimates for this Committee; it was merely put in under a parliamentary heading as " Travelling by Members ". It is not exactly true to say that we could have had that £5,000; we did not have it, so it is slightly wrong to put it like that.

It is not so much that we use our allocation, but that when we go to Brussels as a delegation we should get the best possible benefit from it. My experience is that we have tried to do too much in the past and people who are interested in certain fields get too little from the meetings. We need to choose more carefully the people who go on delegations and also the field of interest in regard to which they will meet people.

And the personnel they meet in Brussels.

There is a certain tendency in Brussels to treat delegations as if they had come just for a chat. On a few occasions, where we had an interest in the EMS, we had a lot of talk before we could meet the people who were of use to us. In fact, we would not have met them had we not had a lot of talk. A lot of planning must go into it and we should tell the Commission that we want to meet people who have a certain level of expertise in a certain subject and that we want X number of hours on it.

We did not do too badly in a way.

It has improved very much. The meetings on the EMS were very worthwhile.

I, as Chairman, will listen to and will pursue suggestions that a Sub-Committee wishes to make. This Committee ought to express a view on that. Do the Committee think that we should proceed on the basis of leaving it to the initiative of Sub-Committees? I am inclined to think that that is not the correct way. There should be some overall view of the thing from the point of view that some judgment must be made. Obviously, I will listen to what anyone has to say, particularly, the chairmen of the different Sub-Committees. If there is any selectivity it should be only on that basis. It should not be a first come, first served way of operating the budget. That is not the correct approach.

Obviously, if the chairmen of the Sub-Committees confer with the Chairman of this Committee, it is a decision for the full Committee and the Chairman.

Top
Share