JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 Feb 2008

Co-operation between European Commission and National Parliaments: Discussion with Commissioner Margot Wallström.

Chairman

We have a very special guest today, the Vice President of the EU Commission, Ms Margot Wallström, the European Commissioner with responsibility for co-operation and communication with member state parliaments. Ms Wallström, as Commissioner for the Environment, addressed this committee in the last Dáil although some of the present members were not on that committee.

On behalf of the committee I welcome the Commissioner and acknowledge her important role in establishing as early as possible good communication between the Commission and member state Parliaments. The President of the Commission created this role as a response to alleged deficiencies in that area, which are now being addressed.

There are two committees responsible for European affairs in this Parliament, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on EU Scrutiny which deals with the day-to-day assessment of proposals emanating from the Commission, and this committee which engages directly with the Commission. In the short life of this committee we have made four submissions to the Commission and visited the institutions, including meeting five or six Commissioners within a 12-hour period. We are delighted that Commissioner Wallström has come to this meeting and we look forward to hearing her presentation.

The committee is particularly anxious to engage with the Commission and all EU institutions. We also have responsibility for engaging directly in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty and will hold public meetings throughout the regions during which we will engage with the pro and contra arguments in that debate.

Ms Margot Wallström

I thank the Chairman and the honourable members of the committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to meet with the committee and to talk about the relationship between the Commission and the EU institutions and national Parliaments, and comment on what the Lisbon treaty involves. I checked the committee's website before coming here and stopped at the clear and concise explanation of its main task, namely, "to monitor, review and report on the implications of EU policies for the future of the EU", and more importantly, "for the future of Ireland as a member of the EU, and for people's daily lives". Reading a bit further I was flattered to find mention of my work as a Commissioner but most of all I was happy to see that the efforts of this Commission in its relations with national Parliaments have gone down so well in this Parliament.

A greater voice for Parliaments is a greater voice for Europe's citizens. That has been the motto from the beginning. This is the first time that there has been a Commissioner responsible for contacts with national Parliaments. This Parliament and committee take this process seriously and contribute to it in a way that many could envy and learn from.

The focus of European co-operation and the European Union is to learn from and share with each other. It should not only concern money, decision-making procedures and bureaucracy, and business opportunities, although that is important. It should concern democracy and equality, giving everyone opportunities and creating a level playing field. We have come quite far in this but there is no reason for complacency. On the contrary, we must reconquer democracy at all times.

The new treaty is a good example of that because democracy is not static. The world around us changes constantly and we must change with it. In the past 50 years the European Union has grown from six to 27 member states which places new demands on all of us, the EU institutions, the member states' Governments, the regions and citizens. Political issues have changed. Today we focus on things that were unknown 50 years ago, globalisation existed then in a way but it was not called that, and we feel its effects more today. Climate change and the energy challenge, the ageing population and rapid technological development place new demands on politicians and on citizens. Everyone should take the opportunity to make his or her voice heard. The citizens' priorities should set the political agenda for the European Union. We need to discuss and debate what initiatives and decisions the EU should take. Only then can we achieve good and sustainable political results.

The Lisbon treaty is a good example of how the EU needs to change with the world around it. This new treaty adapts the EU to the enlarged Union it has become and makes it possible to welcome more new members. It also makes concrete improvements, for example, it clarifies citizens' rights, creates more openness and transparency, gives more say to national Parliaments and more power to the directly-elected European Parliament. It makes it easier to take decisions, which is not always easy with 27 member states around the table. It gives us a more efficient foreign policy and lays more emphasis on our common fight against climate change. It is a success for everyone working for a more open and democratic union. It radically improves the possibilities for citizens and organisations to take an active part in the democratic process through, for example, the citizens' initiative. This is one of the tools for democracy that we so badly need and will get. We are waiting for the new member states to ratify the Lisbon treaty. There have been discussions on whether to hold referenda. As a representative of the Commission I have no view on that. It is up to each member state to choose how it wants to ratify according to its own constitution and democratic traditions.

One thing the member states, EU institutions and individual politicians have in common is the need to explain the treaty and to debate and discuss it with citizens. It is important to discuss the concrete political questions and the problems to be solved because we need to deliver concrete political results in a way that citizens rightly expect from an open, modern and democratic union. With new structures of democratic influence we can forge ahead, away from an old top-down approach and hopefully instead have a bottom-up approach. Only by standing on the solid ground of knowledge can one form radical opinions and take a stand. That is the necessary condition for a well-functioning and stable democracy. As the American politician Alexander Hamilton said, those who stand for nothing, fall for anything. This is where US national parliamentarians play such a crucial role. One must develop democracy, dialogue and debate on European issues. One deals with a substance and engages with the citizens. For this Commission, national Parliaments are central. More than 350 visits by Commissioners to national Parliaments for plenary debates or committee hearings in the past three years show how serious we are.

European affairs need to be fully anchored in the political parties and the national democratic traditions and in the daily political discussions. I can see no better backer for that than the national Parliaments. Parliamentary debates and discussions will improve the process of European policy formulation, as stated in the Commission report two years ago. The Commission's decisions and policies will become better and gain more interest and support if the Parliaments are involved. That is why we have established this dialogue mechanism with all national Parliaments in the Union.

This dialogue mechanism is not an attempt to circumvent established procedures. We do not want to go behind the back of the Council, national Governments or the European Parliament. It is a way of having a dialogue that allows all national Parliaments to be better informed at an earlier stage. It provides a window of opportunity for all to be more active in the preparation and formulation of European policies.

By the end of last year, we received 167 opinions from 27 assemblies from 17 member states on 82 Commission texts, legislation and consultative papers. When I left Brussels yesterday, the last count was more than 180 opinions.

Do the opinions make any difference? An unequivocal "Yes" is the answer. The first impact of this political dialogue is that it obliges the Commission to better explain the purpose of our proposals. In some cases, the Commission, in full co-operation with the Council and the European Parliament, has complemented the text of a proposal as a result of comments from national Parliaments which justifies it better for subsidiarity. In many cases, opinions expressed by national Parliaments were reflected in the legislative process by either the European Parliament or the Council. This points to the added value of the political dialogue. It is an early warning mechanism for the Commission, allowing us to pick up early signals from Parliaments. We hear if Parliaments are going beyond our remit.

Above all, the important message is that the Commission has taken a political approach to our commitment to national Parliaments. This is a political move. It is about anchoring, engagement and ownership. The new provisions in the Lisbon treaty build on this existing political commitment. The treaty recognises that national Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the EU and by making the transmission of legislative proposals and programme documents an obligation. The treaty also recognises national Parliaments are the best place to judge whether the Commission's proposals respect subsidiarity.

These are interesting and challenging times for the EU. Much needs to be done and several hurdles must be passed. I am full of hope for Europe's future, not in a naive sense but in that expressed by George Bernard Shaw when he said we are made wise not by the recollection of our past but by the responsibility for our future.

Chairman

I thank the Commissioner for her presentation and welcome Mr. Martin Territt, head of the European Commission office in Dublin, Mr. Joe Hennon and Mr. Patrick Costello of the European Commission office in Dublin.

Senator Terry Leyden

I thank the Commissioner for attending the committee.

Subsidiarity is a very important issue. Ireland will have a referendum on the Lisbon reform treaty. Actions taken by the Commission and the Vice President, Commissioner Wallström, will have a major impact on the referendum vote. The Irish Farmers Association, IFA, is deeply concerned by the activities of Commissioner Peter Mandelson at the WTO negotiations. I want an assurance from the Commissioner that he will not be allowed to make any concessions on agriculture that could be detrimental to the viability of the Irish agriculture industry. The IFA has committed at all times to vote for European expansion. It is the only farming organisation in Europe that will have a direct vote in a referendum. It protested outside the Commission's Dublin office during the week. I want the Commissioner to give an assurance that no negotiations on the WTO can be concluded without the unanimous agreement of the European Commission. Peter Mandelson cannot be a lone ranger on this issue and sell out the farmers of Ireland or the EU.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

I too welcome the Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communications Strategy. She knows that the millennium development goals are not being met. Malnutrition has risen rather than declined. The Union is in arrears in achieving the objectives set for the developing world. The EU is the single largest contributor to development aid, yet every year 5 million children under the age of five die for want of vaccines available in the West for the past 30 years.

The European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs was briefed recently by the IMF and the World Bank. Over the next 25 years, much economic growth will take place in parts of the developing world, such as China, India and Brazil. If we really reach out to the developing world, in the future it will become our trading partner. It is not just a selfless objective but a selfish one too.

If one recalls the young people marching on the streets during the Gleneagles summit and the Band Aid concerts and so on that got people talking, what can be done so that politicians can regain the leadership of this objective of achieving the millennium development goals? If we want to communicate the European idea, we must highlight what the EU is doing for the developing world and the potential for us in our trade with it. Many people are waiting for politicians to rescue the leadership of the millennium goals.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the Commissioner for a clear exposé of the Lisbon reform treaty. I am interested in two areas. The first relates to an area towards which the Commission has specific responsibility, namely, national Parliaments. Clearly, the Oireachtas is a national Parliament, so we have particular concerns as regards the new role envisaged under that heading in the Lisbon reform treaty. The new statutory role envisaged in terms of communication, powers and so on is a very welcome innovation. However, it is one thing to keep national Parliaments informed as regards communication and dialogue; it is another thing to empower them.

Perhaps the Commissioner can elaborate as regards how she sees the new role, as referred to in the reform treaty, operating in such a manner that the national Parliaments will have a meaningful role in legislation and in policy making, as distinct from lines of communication being opened and information flowing in a two-way direction. She might indicate as to whether somebody in the Commission, perhaps herself as Vice President, will be responsible for monitoring the new powers that national Parliaments will have.

There is a very vexed issue in this country as regards the tax regime. We are always hearing that the Commission is about to harmonise taxes across Europe. The Commission might indicate whether the common corporate tax base is likely to receive attention from any of the European Commissioners in the foreseeable future.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I also wish to welcome the Commissioner. She placed great emphasis in her address on democracy. What are her views on the fact that Ireland is the only EU member state in which the people will vote directly on the Lisbon treaty? In every other European country it was a matter for the individual Parliament to ratify the treaty. Surely it is an example of democracy at its purest when the citizens of a particular country are asked to vote on the treaty. Is the Commissioner happy that real democracy pertains when only people who themselves have been voted into parliament by their electorates are taking the decision as regards the reform treaty? We do not shrink from the challenge, but we believe it is odd that Ireland is the only country that will allow a vote by the people.

I thank the Commissioner for her references to George Bernard Shaw. Clearly, she has a very good researcher who primed her as regards all of that. I agree with what Deputy Costello has said. We are now going around the country on an odyssey, not on a junket to faraway places, talking about Europe and the Lisbon treaty in our towns and cities. We have been told that there are nuggets in the treaty such as the so-called citizens' initiative. However, there is nothing to back this up. Can the Commissioner tell us what she believes the citizens' initiative is, whereby a citizen of any EU country can take his or her gripe to Parliament and be heard? Nobody seems to be able to clarify the situation in this regard for us.

Likewise, when we talk about greater co-operation between the national Parliament and Brussels, while this sounds good in itself, how will it happen? The Commissioner says she will disseminate all the responses in papers, directives and legislation, but what happens then? We keep telling people they will have more control over their own affairs under the Lisbon treaty, but is this true? Will the business of the Commission be open to the public with 27 Commissioners in place? We know the EU will not ultimately comprise 27 Commissioners, and I have no doubt Commissioner Wallström will remain a Commissioner, since she is the most popular woman in Sweden. In the event, will the doings of the Commission be open to the public, and will we all know what is happening?

The difficulty is that when one goes to a public meeting, no matter how friendly, open or discursive we aim to be - and I very much trust the Commissioner's bona fides in that regard - we still have the bulwark to overcome that nobody likes, loves or is interested in Europe. That is how people feel, even though Europe guides many aspects of their lives. It is a very daunting task, to effectively be faced with a wall of disinterest, verging sometimes on the hostile or indifferent.

No matter what has been done as regards blogs or whatever, there is still a wall of disbelief between what happens in Europe and what takes place on the ground here. Perhaps it is the fact that this is an island, and so we feel there is a psychological distance involved which other European countries do not have to traverse, or maybe it is simply geographical. However, it is not from lack of involvement in Europe. As the Commissioner will know, for many hundreds of years the Irish were European before anyone coined the phrase "European". It is not a matter of culture or history but rather the fact that we believe the EU to be impenetrable. We do not know. We do not like the language, sentences or clauses, because we do not understand them.

I do not mean to sound harsh. However, as someone who has been around a while and discerned the mood of the people, I believe this will cause us to falter at the last step as regards getting the Lisbon treaty through. It is an onerous responsibility on Ireland's Parliament and elected representatives. None of us came here from a list system, but via the votes of the people, and so we are democratic in that sense. No matter how much the Commissioner presents a friendly face - and I agree that she does and we thank her for attending - we want to know how it will all work out and how we can break down the miasma of misunderstanding surrounding the impenetrable manner in which Europe does its business.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I warmly welcome the first Vice President of the European Commission, Margot Wallström, to Ireland and congratulate and thank her for the enormous contribution she has made, as a highly respected member of the college of Commissioners, to the whole European Union project over the past decade. She has done her utmost to simplify the European mechanism and reach out to everyone of us, both citizens and parliamentarians - particularly through her Plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate. That was an ingenious proposal and helped to involve us all in understanding and being more committed to the whole European Union project.

I want to congratulate her also on the manner in which she has assisted the imbedding of the ten new member states that have joined the European Union since 2004. The Union has wonderful human resources, but also many fixed resources in terms of structures, offices and systems. We believe there is a great opportunity for all member states to utilise those institutions in a far greater way, in establishing linkages between the management of the Union by people such as the Commissioner and her colleagues, through the EU offices in each member state with the citizens of the individual countries. The EU has a number of offices in Ireland. I am not referring to the offices of Mr. Michael Territt and his colleagues, who do an outstanding job and have a distinctively different role to play. I am talking about centres such as the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions located in Dublin and the EU Food and Veterinary Office in County Meath, which are wonderful facilities with great people.

There is a major opportunity to utilise these centres in a much more meaningful and positive manner, highlighting the roles they play, the jobs they do, the representations they have on behalf of all of the European Union - linking them to our citizens and utilising them in a much more active manner. I have asked about this in the past and I appeal to Commissioner Wallström, as Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication, to see what may be done to utilise those great resources. Would the Commissioner agree that the new reform treaty creates a new absorbing vehicle and strengthens the democratic link between each of the individual citizens of the EU and the institutions, and strengthens the roles of our national Parliament, the European Parliament and Members of those Parliaments? How do we ensure that the smooth transmission of democracy from citizens to their elected representatives and right to the top of the Union can be certain in the future? The citizens have a huge role to play in the future of Europe when we face a referendum later this year.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I join with my colleagues in welcoming the delegation today. I compliment them on their concise, jargon-free language during their presentation. Much of the disjoint that exists between the citizen and Europe is because the language is often less than concise and is usually peppered very liberally with jargon that does not sit well with the majority of the citizens. In developing a communication strategy within the EU, I would welcome the Commissioner's comments on how she intends to remove some of the jargon that exists in different parts of the Commission's communication.

What kind of strategy does she hope to implement to bring the Commission closer to the people? While it is working at the moment, it may not be working very well. When the number of Commissioners is reduced, countries will have no representative on the Commission from time to time and there will be vast tracts of people approaching voting age with no experience of their country having a Commissioner. That may help to reduce the understanding of what the Commission does. It will be important in any communication strategy to try to bring the notion of the Commission closer to the citizens at a time when they do not have a Commissioner. Even when a country has a Commissioner, it would still be useful if there were visits by Commissioners to member states other than their own. For that reason, Commissioner Walström's presence today is welcome. The type of person she is and the way she does business is very helpful. As Deputy O'Rourke said, the Commissioner is the most popular person in Sweden and there is little doubt as to why that is the case.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

What does the Royal Family think about that?

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Many member states might benefit from her visit, which obviously puts pressure on her. I am sure she can enlist others to spend a little bit more time visiting the member states and communicating with them. While communications can take place over the Internet or whatever, the physical presence of somebody on site will always generate more media attention than the communication of a press release.

Chairman

We have three more speakers, but we must also provide time for a family photograph with the Commissioner. She has other engagements on her busy agenda this morning.

Senator Feargal Quinn

Tá fáilte romhat. I welcome the Commissioner. How can I advise people who are concerned about how they will vote? How can I encourage people on the fence to vote "Yes"?

I wish to talk about subsidiarity. We had our own Parliament until 1800, but for the following 122 years we handed over power to London. People are concerned that we are now going to hand more power to Brussels and lose power in our own Parliament. We are going to lose 60 vetoes that are to come under qualified majority voting at Council level. Article 157 and article 158 of the common commercial policy refer to foreign direct investment and intellectual property. Will we lose the power to make decisions in this area and only be allowed to influence those decisions?

The Commissioner concerned me a little bit when she spoke about the power of our Parliaments. She said that she did not wish to take power away from the Commission, but that the national parliaments will better inform the Commission. I am not happy with the word "inform". She asks whether our opinions will make any difference and states that they will oblige the Commission to explain better. That is not very strong. She also states that in many cases the opinions had been reflected in the Commission's decision. These phrases are weaker than vetoes and votes. I would like the Commissioner to put my mind at rest so that I can advise people to vote in favour of the treaty, especially in those areas that apply to the success of the Irish economy in recent years. I am thinking particularly of common commercial policy.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I join with the other members in welcoming the delegation here this morning. The role of the Commissioner at this juncture of the European project is probably the most important in the Commission. While I believe that the people of Europe are pro-European, there are reservations on how Europe has been functioning. There is a perceived democratic deficit and concerns have been expressed by some of the committee members on sovereignty and so on. I firmly believe that we are not handing over power to the European Union, but rather we are sharing power with our counterparts from the other 26 member states. At this point in the development of the EU and in the context of global politics, that is a very important thing of benefit to all of us.

I was part of a delegation of the Joint Committee on EU Scrutiny that met with the Commissioner not too long ago. We met with many officials in the European Parliament, the Commission and elsewhere. We focused on the changes introduced by the Barroso proposal, which appear to be having a good effect. We also dealt with the issues of proportionality and subsidiarity. The one thing that is clear is that we cannot enhance the role of national parliaments with a one-size-fits-all approach. Certain parliaments have already advanced, developed and honed their skills in scrutinising EU legislation and proposals. We are lagging behind in this Parliament in that regard. It is very difficult to compete with a system of scrutiny such as that which exists in the House of Lords, which has 80 peers dedicated to monitoring laws that are coming from the EU. How does the Commissioner see smaller parliaments operating? How are we to cope with the volume of proposals coming on stream? My view is that it is a matter for ourselves, but there is a role for the Commissioner and her department in trying to come up with a framework that we can use for the future.

My second question is related to the Lisbon treaty. I accept that there are protocols incorporated which refer specifically to subsidiarity and proportionality testing for national Parliaments, but the text of the treaty itself simply refers to subsidiarity and not to proportionality. Does the Commissioner see this having any effect in terms of the powers and ability of Parliaments to scrutinise legislation and legislative proposals? The Commissioner mentioned that 167 opinions have been received by her, which is extremely positive. Will the concerns on proportionality be taken on board as seriously and on a par with subsidiarity in light of the provisions of the treaty?

In terms of the huge task of communicating the positive aspects of the EU, from my experience of talking to members of the public about the treaty, I know there are concerns in this country about the loss of the six-month rotating Presidency of the Council by member states. The hype or, if one likes, the travelling circus, did generate some enthusiasm and interest in Europe in the past and gave people a sense of belonging. While we will still be involved in the team presidencies, how does the Commissioner foresee the new position of the figurehead or President of the Council operating? Does she believe it will be beneficial and helpful?

To touch on the point raised by Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, with regard to focusing on the positives and the real benefits of Europe on a global basis, his point on poverty and world hunger was well made. The EU goes unacknowledged in this regard. While the people of Ireland hear of our own NGOs, we do not hear of the joint action and work we do in tandem with other member states. There are also proposals coming downstream, such as the Small Business Act. While this will have a major impact given that the biggest concern of businesses is red tape and bureaucracy, and will have huge benefits and spin-offs, people do not know about it and we have a short space of time in which to communicate it to people in Ireland before the referendum. We must also focus on issues such as our overseas missions and peacekeeping missions, the benefits the Lisbon treaty has in this regard and the opportunities it creates for the Irish Defence Forces and the part they play in EU missions. These are all extreme positives that we need to put forward. We need to try to have them recognised by the people of Europe because they are certainly in all of our interests.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

I welcome the Commissioner and her team. I have three questions for the Commissioner on her portfolio. First, many of my colleagues have talked about the difficulty of engaging our citizens in the European project. One of the ways in which we measure this is the basic point of whether they turn out to vote. I notice that one of the priorities the Commissioner sets for her role is increasing the turnout at the next European election. What are her thoughts on how the Commission will enable this to happen?

Second, from the report we received on the submissions national parliaments make to the European Commission, I note that a quite large majority of the submissions come from the second chambers of national parliaments, for example, the House of Lords in the UK. I would be interested to hear the Commissioner's view on why this is happening. An issue of which I am increasingly aware is that the responsibilities of a committee such as this will grow and grow in the future and how we discharge those responsibilities well will need careful thought.

Third, my colleague, Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, has already made the point regarding the need for Europe to regain political initiative in dealing with major opportunities or issues such as poverty in the developing world. One area in which the European Union is now doing this is on the issue of climate change, and the recent proposals in this regard came from the Commission to nation states. I am interested to hear the Commissioner's view as to how national Parliaments are responding to those proposals and whether this will be of help to her in communicating what the EU is about to its members.

Deputy Michael McGrath

I join my colleagues in welcoming Commissioner Wallström and the delegation. To pick up on some of the points made by previous members in regard to the role of the national parliaments, it is essential we convince people that the adoption of this treaty does not represent a further diminution in the power and role of the national Parliament, which must remain at the centre of the European project. It is important that we would clearly communicate to the people the message that this treaty enhances and strengthens the role of the national Parliament.

Senator Quinn has picked up on an important point that the role cannot merely be a consultative one and that we must have a meaningful contribution to make. Reading through some of the text on what the treaty provides in terms of the role of the national parliament, we need to convince people that it is an enhancement and an improvement. People will not get into the detail of the yellow card and orange card system or whether national governments are taking a case to the European Court of Justice. We need to keep the message simple and clear. We must convince people that by adopting this treaty we are not in fact ceding more power to Europe but enhancing the role of the national Parliament, where all of us, as directly elected representatives, work on a day-to-day basis. That message needs to be clearly conveyed.

Chairman

There is a long list of questions and I am sure the Commissioner will not be able to deal with them all. In summation, the issues that have arisen are ones that have been raised by the Irish electorate and people. The Commissioner will have got the gist that some Commissioners are seen to be more accommodating of the views of the member states and Parliaments than others. While we do not wish to demonise her colleague, Commissioner Mandelson, something that goes without saying is that Ireland is a food producing country which exports 90% of its produce. That is a huge trade issue. More importantly, however, while the EU requires and has the ability to produce a great deal of food, ironically, it happens to be in the position where it must import a substantial amount of food. There should be a warning in this for the European institutions and national Governments because this is not what the founding fathers of Europe had in mind, as the Commissioner is fully aware.

On another trade issue, the WTO agreements and preparation for the WTO round can have a very dramatic impact on the way not just Ireland, but Europe and its trade progresses. For example, the German, French, Italian and Spanish motor manufacturing industries, all of which give huge employment, could be seriously detrimentally affected by relocation to low-wage or low-cost economies, which will in future have the benefit of competing with European producers from an advantageous position, particularly in light of the climate change proposals. These issues need to be borne in mind, not only by Ireland and its negotiators but also by the European negotiators in the context of the WTO.

I am sorry for going on for so long. I will hand over to the Commissioner.

Ms Margot Wallström

I thank the Chairman and members for their interesting and relevant questions. I will to reply to them succinctly and without jargon in so far as is possible. I will make two general comments. The reason I feel so much at home in Ireland is that I recognise the debate from that in my own home country. The concerns people have are very much the same and they ask similar questions, apart from the farming and agriculture issues, which play a greater role here. I also recognise the attitude towards the European Union and the sound scepticism that exists. I recognise that we are among those countries most sceptical about the whole European project. There is sound scepticism that we must take seriously and we must try to respond to the questions. Also, the Commission is fully aware - if it were not, Commissioner McCreevy would remind us - of the debate that continues in Ireland and the concerns of Irish people on different issues. We follow the debate very closely and we take that into consideration without questioning our role as guardians of the treaty. We know our roles and we respect that.

To begin with Senator Leyden's question about the Doha Round, Commissioners cannot act in isolation or without anchoring any position in the Commission or without understanding the position of members states. I assure the committee I have not been convinced these negotiations will happen quickly either. It would surprise all of us if a deal were reached very quickly. The anchoring of our position and the individual Commissioners' mandate happens according to a given procedure. He will have to anchor that in the Commission and with member states and go to the Parliament and check the position of the Parliament. I assure the committee he along with the Commission is fully aware of Irish concerns on these questions and I do not expect that we will make any moves that will suddenly turn everything around in Ireland or for Irish farmers. There will be a debate and there will be an anchoring of any decisions. We are for a balanced outcome of the Doha round. That is the key word here.

Mr. Mitchell is right, we ought to communicate better the work we are doing with developing countries. We do not generally describe our core activities or highlight visits to the African Commission and the African Union visits to us. The summit that took place was an important one. It was controversial because of the absence of a certain African leader but it meant that for once we could concentrate on the agenda for Africa.

As the biggest donor in the world the EU ought to get more credit for what it is doing. At the same time we must accept there is criticism of too many subsidies and for not giving enough access to our markets and so on. That is a sound debate that is necessary. We ought to better communicate everything we do. This is also the reason we form project teams to discuss how we can communicate to and mobilise civil society, the organisations that we must trust and the multipliers of these messages. We need increased engagement with these groups and to explain what we are doing.

At the same time we have to address very important issues like the millennium development goals and the fact that we are still not there. They are within reach and realistic but not enough effort is made to reach them. My experience from the Commission is that we have had a very good debate on these issues lately and in recent years. Commissioner Louis Michel knows these issues very well. We have had a good debate and good programmes but more has to be done to communicate this. I share Mr. Mitchell's views on that.

These are among the things most citizens are interested in examining. For example, the Eutube - I do not know if we have the statistics - of short video clips that we produce about the substantial issues in which we are engaged attract much interest. That is how with live pictures we must show very clearly what we do. My spokesperson Mr. Joe Hannon reminds me of the press conference with Bono. These are the visible things that we can do to help raise interest and to show what we are doing. We can, should and will do more on that.

Deputy Joe Costello knows how to empower national Parliaments. One of the principal questions I have been asked is how do we really empower national parliaments? In the current treaties there is nothing about the role of national Parliaments. There is no established role or procedure for national Parliaments like the one in the new Lisbon treaty. For the first time there is a clear threshold and a way to measure the influence of national Parliaments. We have started this already. My proposal was to start to engage now with national Parliaments to anchor what we do in every member state in the national democratic traditions. However, we are not obliged to do this. It is something we engaged in because we think it is a good idea and it helps us to improve our policy. It is correct to say the proposal is much broader. We allow for any comments on the substance. It is not restricted to the subsidiarity and proportionality tests, national parliaments can comment on the content. In most cases they agree to support the principal ideas and the approach. We have not had many negative opinions.

Deputy Creighton made the correct analysis. It is probable that some of the second chambers have more resources and more time to engage. The Commission has not made that kind of analysis. It is reasonable to argue they have more time to devote to this. This is what we have seen reflected in the number of opinions. This is something for the national Parliaments to organise. How will national Parliaments be able to mobilise if necessary to reach the threshold? How will they coordinate work? What will happen with the role of COSAC?

All of this has to be prepared although not anticipated. This is also the role of the Commission. We will have to start to prepare, reflect and to make an inventory of the proposals we are supposed to make, legislative proposals for example. However, we cannot anticipate. We want to be correct and wait for the ratification from all member states. We have to find that delicate balance of preparing for but not anticipating what will come. I cannot answer all of these questions because it will be for national Parliaments to co-ordinate and ensure the preparation is completed in a proper way with the resources and so on. We will assist as much as possible to answer the direct questions.

It will be crucial for national Parliaments to find the right timing. The national Parliaments must come in at the right time to be able to influence the decision making procedure of the institutions. It takes a long time. It is a rather heavy procedure given all the institutions involved and the planning. I hope there will be someone to monitor this in the Commission. This is my role today and I presented earlier an agenda of the Commission's work on this. This is how we must continue to identify the role of the Commission even though it will not be me, personally, from the beginning of the new Commission mandate.

The tax issue is out. This is another example where we know very well the debate in Ireland and the worries and the concerns about it. I know that the President of the Commission, Mr. Barroso, said that the tax rates here had a good element of competitiveness and that there is no ambition to destroy anything or to destroy Ireland's competitiveness by forcing any tax harmonisation upon it. All member states will have to agree on action concerning taxes, so there is also the ultimate weapon of putting an end to that kind of discussion on tax outcome. There is no ambition to do something that would harm debate on this issue in Ireland. No such proposal is in our plan or in our work programme.

What about referendums? The Commission's position is absolutely clear. It also accepts representative democracy. It respects the decisions of individual member states about which method they choose for ratification. Whatever method is used, there is still a necessity to engage with citizens. If representative democracy is used, with national Parliaments taking the decision, this does not mean that citizens should not be informed or engaged with in debate. Those things must still be done. This is a democratic obligation on all of us.

The Commission respects the fact that member states have different traditions. In Germany, a referendum is forbidden and that tradition must be respected. In other member states the referendum option is used very rarely and for particular issues. We all know the ups and downs of using referendums. There is a debate about this in my country. In some cases it is difficult to interpret a referendum result because it is such a complex issue. When a person votes "No" because the text contains one sentence about sports that he or she does not like, how is that result to be interpreted? This could be the downside in presenting such a complex text to the voters, knowing that in any case, whatever effort is made, probably not all Irish people will have read the full text so they will have to trust--

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

One may be sure of it.

Ms Margot Wallström

Perhaps the committee can assure me that all citizens will read the text, but this is the downside. There is an obligation to inform, which is a positive element, but there is no way of being sure that everyone will have read or have had access to the full information. That makes the referendum process more difficult. The Commission respects whatever method is used. It acknowledges that it is also democratically legitimate to use representative democracy by using the national Parliament for ratification. That is the Commission's view.

What about the citizens' initiative? The argument is that this new treaty will make the European Union more democratic because it will give more power to the people. It will give it through, for example, the citizens' initiative, whereby a citizen can act by raising 1 million signatures, not an impossible task today. There have been some test cases of this already, using the Internet and similar methods. In a significant number of member states, a citizen who has gathered that number of signatures can turn to the Commission and ask for an initiative on a particular issue. This will be an instrument. I know that several organisations are already rallying--

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

The disability group has 1 million signatures already.

Ms Margot Wallström

That is correct. This is very important. The group has said that its rights must be legislated upon, and that certain things must be done. It is of course a political commitment on the part of the EU to say that it will receive and act upon that initiative. It is a very powerful instrument.

It is also important that the Council will meet in public, and that citizens will be able to follow what is said by Ministers in the different Council formations when legislative acts are being discussed. To have more openness and transparency is crucial to the credibility of EU institutions for the future. That is another important point.

The idea of giving more power to national Parliaments helps to reinforce this. It will be clearer to citizens, including Irish citizens, that they can turn to their national Parliament and give their views to the political parties represented there on what should happen at EU level.

It is an interesting issue of principle. Does it mean, as Deputy Creighton said, that power is not handed over but that it is shared? Or is it perhaps the taking back of some power that had already moved to the international level? That citizens would say that now they will decide how to organise decision making at the European level? This is an important issue of principle and a challenge to all involved because it addresses the matter of room for political manoeuvre in a globalised world.

Where is the room for democracy when capital and investment can move across borders from one day to another? Democracy takes time. It means that people have to meet and discuss and even come up with new ideas. Where is the room for manoeuvre, especially at European level, when media coverage is still mainly national and when political parties and activities are mainly national? How do we create a democratic public sphere where citizens feel that they can have influence? There is not the same emotional engagement. Why is it hard to love the EU? I once wrote a book with that title. This is part of the issue, namely, that we do not have the same emotional connection.

Chairman

We have a slight problem, Commissioner.

Ms. Margot Wallström

There have been so many questions.

Chairman

There will shortly be a vote in the House.

Ms Margot Wallström

Does this mean that the members must go to vote?

Chairman

There are about six minutes left.

Ms Margot Wallström

I will try to be brief and answer some of the questions because I recognise exactly the type of concerns and the same questions and worries. Is this too distant an issue? How do we make people feel engaged and involved and how do we give them a say? These matters have been on my agenda from the outset.

To answer a specific question, it is my understanding that the two protocols of subsidiarity and proportionality are still there and are still valid. They have the same legal value as the text in the treaties. That is what will be done regarding the subsidiarity and proportionality text. That is why it is formulated as it is and why my assessment is formulated as it is. That regards the subsidiarity and proportionality text in the main but it has now been opened up in a broader way. There is no legal obligation to say that the proposal must be changed.

Chairman

This is one case where the national Parliament must take precedence. I thank the Commissioner for her address and for giving replies to the various questions. They are important and I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss them again in Brussels before the referendum takes place. I ask the Commissioner to accept from the members a brief presentation and memento of her visit.

Ms Margot Wallström

Perhaps it is possible to send written answers to the other questions.

Chairman

That is possible.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

All members will be disenfranchised.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.50 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 March 2008.