We have received apologies which are noted.
Business of Joint Committee.
Deputy O'Rourke sends her apologies.
As members are aware, a deputation which included Deputies Dooley, Costello and Mulcahy; Senators de Búrca and Prendergast, and me, visited the European institutions on 3 and 4 December. We attended two joint parliamentary meetings on the future of Europe which we found interesting. I compliment the staff on arranging the meetings. We met the most senior people I can remember in my time as a member of any committee. When we did not meet Commissioners, we met senior heads of delegations who were authoritative in dealing with questions and positions raised.
We still must attend one other similar mission. On this occasion we put into two days what would have normally taken one week. It was probably better to get it over and done with. The visit was in preparation for the referendum we would have. Therefore, it was better to do it in time than chase after it. I thank members for their diligent attendance at the meetings. Without a full house, we would not have got results or gained respect from the persons being visited.
There were five Commissioners. For the first time in my experience, they were prepared to be less coy than before. They were straightforward and honest, which is beneficial. Nothing makes people more suspicious than an impression that there is something underhand or something is being withheld. There was absolute honesty in every sense of the word, on which we should congratulate them.
I am very impressed by Catherine Day and the position she holds in the European Union. This is also a reminder of the power Ireland has been able to achieve without the strength of armies or votes, etc. It is due to the diligence and work of many of those involved.
I agree entirely. We should also mention that she was very impressive when we met her, as were the other figures, including the permanent Irish ambassador. As we grow into the work of the committee, we will realise the area of external affairs in the European Union is much bigger than it was a few years ago. The European Union's involvement and commitment are much greater. Therefore, there will be a need for the committee to become involved, be knowledgeable and have all the required information at its fingertips. This is likely to arise in the context of the referendum but it will probably also arise in the context of responsibilities accruing to the committee and the country from the evolution of the European concept. There are countless joint ventures between the United Nations and the European Union in peacekeeping, which borders on peace enforcement. It remains part and parcel of what this country has been involved in for the past 40 years or more.
The meeting of the working group of committee Chairmen took place on Tuesday, when some of us were away. Deputy Breen attended on our behalf because the Vice Chairman was also away. It will be of interest to members to note that the travel budget for 2008 was approved at a figure of €65,000. That will be an important issue, as we will hold meetings all over the country prior to the referendum. We will have other responsibilities thrust upon us.
I ask members to bear with me in trying to obtain as much information as we can and get as much work done as possible in the first six or seven months. We must receive the information before the referendum. As I indicated, it is intended to have an interim report ready by the end of January, which will effectively be a handbook in dealing with matters that arise. All members should be capable of dealing with issues as they arise. There is nothing as bad as not having a proper brief on matters. There should be arguments for and against and we should be able to deal with them effectively. I hope we can achieve this.
On meeting times, the joint committee received its first preference. It will meet on Tuesdays at 2.30 p.m. in Committee Room 3. The room is somewhat small and restricted in meeting delegations and, because we will deal with EU matters, more people will wish to attend. We may move to Committee Room 4 as we progress. We have just met the Minister.
Members have been circulated with the final draft of the work programme, including a proposal to undertake and implement an information and public awareness programme as part of the committee's work programme during the referendum, to which I have already referred. This will be updated on an ongoing basis but the critical question is when should we start. It is important that we have an interim report so we are ready to go.
I commend those who prepared the work programme as it is comprehensive and I formally propose it be adopted.
Is that seconded?
I second it.
The programme will be updated as new issues arise. We may have to change it slightly, for example, when the date of the referendum is known as that will better enable us plan our campaign.
In yesterday's budget there was an allocation to the Department of Foreign Affairs for the referendum and I think this committee should seek additional funding, if required, for regional meetings. This funding would be in addition to funding for national and international travel. The amount allocated to the Department of Foreign Affairs to promote the referendum is substantial and as this issue is separate from the normal workings of the committee we should seek additional funding to organise regional meetings. Funding is needed for halls, hotels, presentations and so on to promote this in a professional way and I do not feel that the €68,000 allocated will be of benefit in this regard. It is in the national interest that this committee be the co-ordinating body for promoting the Lisbon treaty.
Is it agreed that we should seek further funding, as required, to participate in this programme?
The National Forum on Europe is doing something similar. Is there a danger that we will overlap with it or should we co-ordinate with it?
No, because it is felt that this is one of the most important referenda to face us. Everyone in Europe is looking to Ireland to see how we will approach it and Ireland is the only country in which the people will have a say through a referendum. If this committee were to lack commitment to this matter and reference was later made to this we would not easily live with the shame. This was the general consensus previously.
It is important we do not trip over the National Forum on Europe, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs or anyone else promoting the referendum. With this in mind we will spread meetings over all parts of the country, while noting locations likely to be visited in promoting the same cause. We must take account of the negative side of the argument and be able to deal with it because it would be unacceptable for a person to come to the debate from an angle we did not foresee.
I would hate to find that we arranged to go to Mullingar on a Monday only to discover another group planned to visit on Tuesday. I want to ensure visits are co-ordinated.
The Senator is correct and we will ensure that does not happen.
I agree with the Chairman and feel we should take the lead role as the parliamentary committee dealing with European affairs but we should liaise with the National Forum on Europe also to avoid crossed lines. Many of us are members of the forum and there was a meeting today so we had to choose between attending the forum or this committee. We should examine this matter in the context of public meetings and so on.
No reference is made in our work programme to inviting European representatives, such as the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, to address the committee. This committee does not seek interference from Europe but, nevertheless, there should be an amendment to the programme to include European Union institutions. It may be that we would like to invite President Barroso, some of the various groupings in Parliament or some commissioners to come before us. This should be included as an option within the proposed programme.
That is already understood to be part of the programme. We may have to vary and expand the programme and nothing will be done without the committee being informed. When we were in Brussels we tried to ensure there would be no unhelpful visits from uninvited guests but we met two or three significant people who were well capable of holding their own in any quarter on any part of the argument. Incidentally, the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, is very impressive on the subject of the Lisbon treaty and is committed to it.
It might be worthwhile inviting the Secretary General of the European Commission, Catherine Day, to come before us.
She is very committed also.
I wish to comment on the recent contribution by Commissioner McCreevy as I know some people reacted strongly to it. In terms of how the referendum campaign is to be conducted this type of intervention may not be helpful because the Irish people must feel free to vote as they see fit. The support of the Irish people must be won through reasoned arguments and not threats that they will be the laughing stock of Europe.
Commissioner McCreevy is a blunt individual and probably strongly feels Ireland should support the treaty but high profile public figures should temper their remarks to avoid pushing otherwise open-minded, reflective people into a reactionary response that merely indicates they do not want to be told what to do.
As Deputy Joe Costello said, this committee, by virtue of the range of members it has, is in a better position than most to understand the feelings of the people of Ireland on the subject matter before them. The committee is also in a better position to convert this combination of energy and information into a positive line of thought among the general public.
If we are to conduct regional meetings, something I support, can the Chairman ask the secretariat to prepare a schedule for the first six months? We could then use the schedule in tandem with our diaries to plan ahead.
It is not going to be convenient for members to engage in the regional meetings as they will involve attendance in different parts of the country from week to week. Senator Feargal Quinn has already referred to the fact that it would be ridiculous for us to promote this subject on the night preceding another group doing likewise. We will try to ensure we do not conflict with the schedules of other groups. The schedule of meetings will be drawn up and issued to members but will be subject to change.
Our European adviser is busily working on the interim report but perhaps he could come to this side of the table so we can see him more readily. The committee could hold a press conference in the audio-visual room next door before the report is finalised to highlight the fact that it is coming. We could then launch the report. I am willing to do this but we would have to hold the press conference in the next two weeks. Alternatively, we can wait until the interim report has been completed and have a press conference to launch it but it is necessary we do one or the other.
We should set the location and have the press conference on the day the treaty is signed in Europe, 13 December.
That is not a Friday, is it?
It is a Thursday.
It is Thursday, the day before. I have no problem with that. It is not a bad idea, but it is up to members.
Is it not a bit premature at this stage?
Our press conference would only be to launch the short-term plans of the committee - in other words, our plans for one month away, at the end of January. It is up to members.
There may not be unanimous support for the treaty at this committee.
I recognise that and it is not a problem. The aim is to generate meaningful debate on the positions for and against. That is the important thing. If someone has a better argument than we have on one side or the other, let us hear it. However, they should make it a good one, as we intend to make a good argument also.
I support the idea of having a press conference, primarily because it gives a focus to our intention and moves us along, but also because of the proposal from Senator Leyden on funding, which is very important. We should have a comprehensive roll-out throughout the country.
Two issues arise for the secretariat, including the possibility of a press conference next Thursday. There is no problem with that.
I wish to follow up on something that was said a moment ago. Can the Chairman remind me of our obligation to be balanced in terms of the arguments for and against the treaty? I am not sure whether we have such an obligation, but there is an obligation to treat both sides equally when there is a referendum. Does that apply to us?
It does.
Suppose we all feel one way - although that may not be the case - does the Chairman pick one or two of us to act as devil's advocate?
There is a legal issue. If public money is being spent, such as the €165,000 we are talking about, there is an obligation to facilitate the presentation of arguments for and against. I do not see any great difficulty with that. I know where the Senator is coming from and I was selfishly of that opinion some years ago. However, the situation has changed. I used to believe that if the Government proposed something, those who were for it should spend Government money on it. That is how other Government proposals are treated. However, in this case, there is a Supreme Court decision which obliges us to facilitate - although not necessarily promote - arguments for and against the proposal. I have no difficulty with that and, in fact, I look forward to it. It is a great opportunity for the members of this committee to hone their skills, although I doubt there are any who have not already honed them.
Incidentally, it will be difficult to get full attendance at meetings. Even today, it was difficult to get full attendance. I do not want to be critical of anybody, but if we want to get the work done and we want to be responsible, dependable and realistic about it, we will have to attend. That means the conveners and everybody else should be there when the meeting opens.
On a point of clarification, I agree that both sides of the argument should be put forward at this forum, but I do not know whether we are under any legal obligation because that applies to the Government, not necessarily a joint Oireachtas committee. I do not think legal advice is necessary but I would appreciate clarification of this. We could ask the secretariat to find out from the Department of the Taoiseach our legal role in this regard.
I unfortunately proposed at one stage in the past five years to take a legal challenge with regard to some aspects of administration in the Oireachtas, although I will not give anything away. I went through that in some detail. If members want to obtain legal advice they should by all means do so. My opinion is that we are obliged to facilitate the presentation of both sides of the argument, and we would be foolish not to. Let us have all the arguments. We should not monopolise the argument but allow it to be reflective of people's opinions. There must be a facility for putting both sides of the argument. Depending on the argument, it will resonate or not resonate.
It is still a complex issue, because a referendum commission will be established and this will have to consider both sides of the argument. The question is whether there will be the same number of people on the platform speaking for the treaty as there are speaking against. Is that how we will facilitate the presentation of both sides of the argument? Alternatively, we could go to public meetings and present the treaty in an awareness and information session followed by a question and answer session in which we will answer as best we can the questions that might be raised, whatever their nature. It would be foolish for us to go out as a pro and con type of committee, as the referendum commission has done by putting forward a counter argument to every argument. We need to agree on how we will conduct ourselves in public.
We must reflect the body of opinion that exists within the Oireachtas. That is the bottom line. The majority of opinion within the Oireachtas at this time supports the treaty and the European institutions. There are other people who have been always opposed, although I do not mean that as a reflection on anyone. I do not see any difficulty in dealing with this. I welcome the opportunity and look forward to it.
This is an important point as far as the Green Party is concerned. As the Chairman is probably aware, we have a special convention on 19 January at which our members will vote on the position the party will take in the forthcoming referendum campaign. If we are to hold a press conference before then, I ask the committee to bear in mind that the choice between advocating a "Yes" vote and reflecting the range of opinions within the Oireachtas is a sensitive issue for us.
Every member of the committee will have an opportunity to air his or her views publicly, and I have no difficulty with that.
I am concerned about the timing of the press conference. The Chairman wants to hold it as early as next Thursday, at the same time as the meeting of the National Forum on Europe. I would be concerned about going into such a press conference unless it were very well planned. If we are obliged to give both views despite the fact that everybody on the committee is of one view, how do we do that?
This press conference will be about what we propose to do. We are not going to solve any problems or give information. We will be telling the public and the Oireachtas that we propose to engage in the campaign. We are setting out our stall in this regard. We will inform people that there will be an interim report and a report following the visits to the regions and we will deal with the arguments and issues. Of course, there will be questions about our attitudes towards certain things. We cannot have a debate of this nature without views being expressed by all sides. That will whet the appetite and improve the situation. With regard to the job of the committee and the way in which we will do it, we will be conclusive.
We are all gathered around the table here representing our respective parties and we are here to reflect the views espoused by our parties, although the Independents have more flexibility. My party will be strongly espousing a "Yes" vote on this issue. If I stand as a member of this committee on a public platform, can I not argue the toss with regard to what my party says on the issue? This is a European affairs committee composed of people expressing the views of the parties from whence they come. Is that not our role? Do we not have considerable scope to say what we wish?
Absolutely. It is hugely to the benefit of the committee that we have that characteristic. We represent the Oireachtas in all its views. I look forward to it and I think the members will look forward to it also. I look forward to their participation.
Correspondence received since the last meeting has been circulated. Item 21, the 2006 Annual Report of the European Ombusdman, is noted.
Item 22, at its meeting on 20 November the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny forwarded the following proposal to this committee: COM (2007) 478 - proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of an agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on co-operation between the European Union agency for fundamental rights and the Council of Europe. The committee is invited to forward its observation on this proposal. We have a briefing note. Is its adoption agreed? Agreed.
Amending letter No. 1 of the preliminary draft budget 2008 is referred to the joint committee for information. Is it noted? Noted. Item 23 is correspondence received from the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee enclosing copy of resolutions adopted at its 29th meeting in Strasbourg on 14 and 15 November. Noted.
Item 24 is correspondence received from the president of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia regarding a series of interparliamentary meetings scheduled during the Slovenian EU Presidency in the first half of 2008. It is proposed to note. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Item 25 is an e-mail to national parliaments to participate in a meeting of EPPED European Party on 3 December. That is done. Item 26 is an e-mail from the Dóchas policy adviser, regarding a meeting with Commissioner Louis Michel held on 26 November on the joint EU-Africa strategy. We have been put on notice that we will be paying considerable attention to the EU-African strategy in the next few years.
The draft minutes of the last meeting of the committee have been circulated. Are the minutes of the meeting of 20 November agreed? Agreed. Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, 11 December at 2.30 p.m. when the Director of Communications of the European Commission Directorate General, Marie Donnelly, will attend to discuss the European Commission's social reality consultation. I thank members for their attendance.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.25 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 December 2007.