JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union) díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 2008

Role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in EU Affairs: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome the witnesses, Deputies Durkan and Perry. Both Deputies, as highly-efficient chairpersons, know the need to start on time to encourage the other members of the committee to come along when they are meant to. We will make a start.

I do not need to go through all of the procedures I go through with other guests. Both Deputies are very much aware of why we are here and of the work of the sub-committee. The background I would add is that we are particularly focused on the role of national parliaments and how we can improve their effectiveness. We have had presentations from the German Parliament, the Finnish Parliament, the Danish Parliament and the UK Parliament. Four different parliaments, all with different points of view, have made presentations and we felt that we could not finish off our work on that module without talking to the two Deputies. That is why we have invited them to comment on the effectiveness of our Parliament on the EU and from their own point of view, what work can be done to improve it. We will give ten minutes to each Deputy, as we do with all our other guests, and then I will hand over to my colleagues who will get ten minutes each. I will start off with the person who is nearest to me, Deputy Durkan.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Thank you. I congratulate you and the members of the sub-committee for the work that done and the manner in which the sub-committee has gone about it. It is a vitally important role on which a great deal rests. Never since we first joined the European Union was there more importance placed on how the Irish people perceived the Union and how the Union perceives the Irish people. On the sub-committee's recommendations will rest the future progress of this country and the future perception by other EU member states of the role this country intends to have there.

I note that the sub-committee's terms of reference are to analyse the challenges facing Ireland and the European Union following the Lisbon treaty referendum result. It is up to us. The European member states will not renegotiate. There may be some minor alterations but there is significant focus on what Ireland intends to do in the short term against the background of the European Parliament elections which take place in June next, and the implications that may have. Any decision we make here may be after that, which in turn will not meet the requirements of many of our EU colleagues. However, we had a referendum which was not successful and it now would appear that it is back to us, as a people, to determine our attitude as to what we wish to do in the future.

There is a great deal of understanding of our position. Understanding is one matter, however what happens as a result of the failure of one or more of the European countries to ratify the Lisbon treaty will have serious long-term implications, which I am sure the sub-committee has already analysed and the possibilities of which I am sure it has been told already by many.

The European community in general is tolerant but it is also very focused on the need to progress. For people who may say there is a better deal in town or that there is a better deal available, that is not the case. It will not become the case. It will be a matter for us to engage.

The other matter of which we need to be aware is that we played a meaningful role within the European Union as a small country and we were seen by other small countries as a vehicle for change and for recognition of the role of smaller countries. We were seen as a country that was able to develop the European concept well, to utilise the procedures and structures that were available to us within and as a result of the Union and at the same time to make a serious contribution to the economic well-being of the European Union in general. That can continue in the future, depending on what we decide ourselves, but the big issue will be the extent to which Ireland is determined to remain a main player on the European stage. That is the issue that will fall to us as a people. I do not know whether we intend to do that. I have no way of knowing what way the Irish people are likely to vote in another referendum. However, it is my opinion that we must have a referendum because if it is decided that one does not have a referendum on part of the issues concerned, we leave ourselves open to legal challenge. Once one proceeds with a piece of legislation or a proposal, it follows that if one repeats the process one must include everything in the package that was previously included. We have a problem. Much depends on the maturity of the Irish people as to how we tackle that.

In the course of committee discussions prior to the referendum, many conflicting views were expressed. One of the views expressed at the time was that there was a tendency in some quarters to go back to what was referred to as "the good old days". I am not sure what is meant by "the good old days". It probably means different things to different people. At this stage we have proven our ability to operate within a union of states. We have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that we are capable of holding our own as a nation and utilising the benefit of membership of the European Union and its markets. We have clearly illustrated beyond any shadow of doubt that we are a force to be reckoned with as a nation, that we have not only something to gain but that we have also something to contribute.

In any association of nations, whether it be the United Nations or the European Union in the future, the rights and the importance of small nations will always have to be regarded. Failure to do that within the European context would have serious consequences. As we all know, Europe does not have a history of being at peace with itself for too long. It was really only in the past 50 or 60 years, arising from the identification of certain aspirations by the founding fathers of modern Europe, that Europe began to develop to the extent that it did. In comparison to other economies, Europe still has a lot to learn in terms of the development of that concept.

It is very important to make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in European Union affairs. The job of the sub-committee is very much part of that. I was a member of the Joint Committee on European Affairs in 1981, which seems like a long time ago. It is a long time ago. Many changes have been made since and greater responsibilities have been thrust on the committee than was the case at the outset. It is now more important than ever that members of the committee are vigilant, and that they interact and challenge the issues that arise at all times. At the same time they should be mindful of the fact that putting too much emphasis on member state parliaments could introduce a veto. In so far as smaller countries are concerned, a veto should only be used as a last resort. In other words, if we are sufficiently au fait with what is happening, we should be able to identify emergencies long before they arise.

I was in Paris yesterday attending a COSAC meeting. We had probably one of the smallest delegations of any country there. Several countries with a similar population to ours had a delegation four times the size of ours. That may be taken as an indication of our lack of interest in Europe at present. I do not think that is a good thing. It is a very dangerous thing to presume that because we are in a hiatus at present we should not participate to the fullest possible extent at all times in all the deliberations. COSAC is a body comprising members of national parliaments that is deemed the sounding board for the thinking of members throughout Europe. It is a question of balance. We must be vigilant and always ready, capable and available to comment and watch everything.

I have dealt with the matter of considering measures to improve public understanding of the EU and its fundamental importance for Ireland. No words of mine are sufficient to underscore and emphasise its importance economically, socially and politically. Ireland's future as a major player and an integral part of the European Union is not only a question benefiting from the Union but also delivering to the Union the influence that comes from a small country which has managed to succeed and has had a difficult history in terms of its political and economical development in the not too distant past.

Deputy John Perry

I thank the Chairman. I am pleased to be here with my colleague, Deputy Durkan, to discuss the role of the Oireachtas in EU affairs. I have been following these meetings closely and I want to compliment the committee on the work it is doing which is extremely important. It is important that the Oireachtas is seen to play a central role in EU matters on behalf of the people we represent.

In my initial statement I intend to briefly set out how the EU scrutiny system was developed in Ireland. I will then outline some of the main issues that have arisen during the scrutiny committee's work and I will outline some of our main initiatives to improve the overall scrutiny process and to make it more visible and accountable to the people.

Irish parliamentary scrutiny has its roots in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1973. The original focus was European secondary legislation and the 1973 Act provided for the establishment of a committee on secondary legislation. The focus has changed and broadened considerably since then.

The Joint Committee on European Affairs was established in 1995 to carry out an oversight role for the Oireachtas on EU matters. In 1997 a protocol to the Amsterdam treaty made provisions to enhance the scrutiny powers of national parliaments. The European Union Scrutiny Act 2002 put EU scrutiny by the Oireachtas on a statutory footing. Between 2002 and 2007 the scrutiny function was carried out by a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on European Affairs.

In recognition of the growing importance of examining proposed EU legislation, the Oireachtas set up a full Joint Committee on European Scrutiny in October 2007. In essence, we now have two committees to cover EU business. The Joint Committee on European Affairs has an oversight role and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny carries out the scrutiny function.

The volume and complexity of EU business has changed enormously since 1973 and I will provide figures to put it in perspective. The European Community of nine members has been replaced by the European Union of 27 member states. We have more than 500 new legislative proposals per year and 9,000 Community laws are in force. Ireland has transposed more than 1,700 EU directives into Irish law and the various formations of the Council of Ministers hold more than 100 meetings per year.

The sheer scale of this activity presents a major challenge for national parliaments in providing for adequate accountability and transparency. I am aware that the committee has met with UK, Danish and German EU committees. In following the debate I understand the committee has explored the issues around strengthening the existing scrutiny model in Ireland.

Two main categories are used to describe scrutiny models in national parliaments. Some countries, like Ireland and the UK, have chosen a document-based system, which focuses on scrutiny of documents emanating from the EU institutions. In some cases, these systems are accompanied by a scrutiny reserve which provides that governments should not agree to proposals in the Council until the parliamentary scrutiny process has been completed.

Other countries have developed mandating systems which focus on their government's position in the Council. In some cases, such as Denmark, which I visited and closely examined the system there, the European affairs committee is empowered or required to give a direct mandate to a national government before a Minister can agree to proposed legislation in Council meetings.

It is important to note that there is no generic best model for parliamentary scrutiny. Each parliament has to react to the demands of EU membership in accordance with its own constitutional arrangements, party systems and political culture, parliamentary workload and practices, pattern of majority or minority governments and prevailing national attitudes on European integration.

A general consensus does not seem to be emerging, particularly after the Lisbon treaty result, that we need to strengthen the role of the Oireachtas in EU matters. We need to be careful, however, that we do not amend the system for the sake of change. We need to ensure we tackle the problems that matter to the public such as why there is such a lack of public awareness and media interest in how the Oireachtas deals with EU business. That is a major issue because of the volume of forensic work carried out by committees. The media does not cover the debates that take place. Other problems include how we address the democratic deficit in EU decision making and how we can bring politics more into the European debate to counter the strong bias towards domestic issues. The issue of politics is important because all politics are local. Political issues and the experience of politicians on issues that impact on the citizen need to be debated in a very political manner. Further questions include how we meet the need for sufficient accountability of the Government and EU institutions and what are the clear benefits-effects of EU membership, overall policies and individual proposals.

I refer to initiatives by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which has actively pursued improvements to the existing scrutiny system. We have produced three reports which have set out specific recommendations for changes. I will outline some of the most important initiatives involved. There is a need for significant changes to Dáil and Seanad Standing Orders which can be done easily to ensure the regular consideration of scrutiny reports in plenary session, which is not in the gift of the Government. If we are serious about EU scrutiny, the public and the media need to see important new EU directives being considered in detail by the Houses to help ensure Irish interests are adequately protected. Discussion on EU legislation should not be left to a minority of members in the European committees. It has to be a fundamental role for all Members which can only be done by making EU business a standard part of plenary sessions. We launched a six-monthly report last week which will be debated in the Chamber soon. The lack of awareness among Members is appalling.

A package of measures need to be agreed to improve the public and media awareness of the committee's important watchdog role on new EU legislation. The committee is developing a professional communications strategy to increase public awareness of the role of the Oireachtas in implementing EU legislation, make information more easily available to the public and the media, and show how important EU developments are in the Irish context, which is critical. That goes all the way from the Parliament to local authorities because EU business has a direct impact on local authorities which can be adversely reflected by county councillors. Interaction between local authorities and Dáil Éireann must be seriously considered.

The Oireachtas needs to establish its own EU information office to provide information for visitors and other users, including on Oireachtas activities and decisions on EU business. I have seen this idea work successfully in Denmark. I have progressed the matter with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Ceann Comhairle and it has received broad support. Many visitors are attending the House today but no information is available to anybody on the European Union.

The committee has played an active role through COSAC in how national parliaments can co-operate to implement the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a key legal tool to ensure proposed EU laws will only be advanced where they will be better than actions taken at national or local level. There are several interpretations of subsidiarity. Different parliaments give different meanings to it. I emphasise that it is a key legal tool to ensure that proposed EU laws are advanced where they would be better than action taken at national or local level. That is the issue. We need to bring it back down to the people.

We need to more closely involve the sectoral committees, such as the committees of this House, in EU business. There is far too much activity at EU level. We should not leave the majority of the responsibility for these matters with one or two committees. When a committee dealing with EU matters sends an important directive to a sectoral committee, the committee is mandated to get back to the original committee within a certain timeframe. Such committees need to work closely with one another. I have studied the UK approach to this issue in great detail. The chairman of the relevant UK committee works actively with the chairmen of the other committees to move matters on.

We need to have more regular meetings and briefings with Irish MEPs. This is important. While Irish MEPs may attend the meetings of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, we need to put mechanisms in place to share information with them in a more structured manner. MEPs should be able to discuss key issues with their parliamentary colleagues. If that means that MEPs need to sit in Dáil Éireann on "Europe Day" once a year, that should be considered. We need to emphasise the benefits of EU membership for Ireland. Too often, the Union is associated with negative stories, to the exclusion of the large amount of positive work that is done.

I will outline how a mandate, or scrutiny reserve, system might work in Ireland. I will make a related 60-day proposal for consideration. When I was the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Ministers were formally required to report back to the committee within 60 days, outlining the actions that had been taken in response to a decision of the committee. It is important to emphasise that a precedent was set in this regard in 1922. The system worked well and gave teeth to the accountability process. It ensured that the scrutiny cycle reached a satisfactory conclusion. Similarly, I propose that when the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny makes a strong recommendation, it should be sent to the Minister who would then be obliged, by statute, to report back to the committee within 60 days outlining his consideration of the committee's recommendations. In the intervening period, the report should be capable of being discussed in the Seanad or in the Dáil. The responses of these Houses would give a clear indication of the position of the Government.

A system of this nature should be introduced to govern the sending of scrutiny reports to Ministers. This would increase the extent to which Ministers are accountable, which is critical, when negotiations take place at Council level. It would also enable the committee to assess the position taken by Ireland at such Council negotiations. There is a vacuum in that respect at present. As things stand, the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 only requires Ministers to "have regard to any recommendations" made in Oireachtas reports. That leads to a major weakness in the work of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. We need to follow the precedent set in the case of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is not sufficiently strong to say that a Minister shall "have regard" to the Oireachtas. We should change Standing Orders by including a reference to the precedent set in the case of the Committee of Public Accounts, which is one of the most recognised Oireachtas committees. It has worked effectively in the interests of the taxpayer. It is recognised that the committee has played a critical role.

We should impose a formal requirement on Ministers to respond to the relevant committee within 60 days. The Minister should be required to outline in his or her response how he or she has taken the views of the committee into account. Such a system could have a far greater effect and would be important. I emphasise that the oversight undertaken by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny is not an end in itself. It has to be seen to add value to the democratic process. The results it achieves should be used in a wider political forum. I look forward to reading the sub-committee's detailed analysis of how progress can be made with these matters. I will be happy to take questions from members.

Chairman

I thank Deputies Perry and Durkan for their contributions. I will call Deputy Creighton, followed by Deputy Dooley, Senator de Búrca and Deputy Costello.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I thank the Chairmen of the two committees for coming here this afternoon to contribute to this meeting in such an interesting manner. The sub-committee has previously discussed scrutiny systems in other member states and considered how national parliaments should interact with EU legislation. It is important to put these matters in context. I would like to ask a couple of specific questions.

As the Deputies are aware, the sub-committee has been examining the various scrutiny methodologies employed by national parliaments. The mandate system seems to be the one that has the most teeth. It would have the most impact. It gives the national parliaments the most input into and control over the national position as presented at Council meetings. I would like to hear more of the witnesses' views on that and whether they believe such a system would generally be applicable in some form in the Oireachtas. I accept Deputy Perry's point that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach because every parliament and system is different.

I fully support the European scrutiny committee's proposal to have greater debate in plenary session in the Dáil. European law making, no matter how voluminous or important in the future, will not be considered relevant by the Irish people until our Parliament begins to take it seriously and regard it as being relevant, and until our politicians, particularly our Dáil Deputies, take it seriously. This is crucial to having a greater understanding of the relevance of the EU, knowledge of the importance of the legislation coming down the line and a sense of our place in Europe. There is also the added value of being able to provide more thorough scrutiny.

In a previous session we had the idea that perhaps we could examine some way MEPs could participate in some sessions in the Dáil, Seanad or both. This happens in other parliaments. It would give us a much greater link between the national Parliament and the European Parliament and would be very constructive. An idea would be to have Commissioners, particularly the Irish Commissioner but any one we wish, to formally participate or address the Dáil on occasion should a matter be of particular pertinence or interest to Ireland. That would provide a focal point for the media, which is how we communicate with the public, and give a greater importance to the role of the EU in the work we do in the Dáil. I would like to hear how the witnesses would feel about that participation by MEPs and Commissioners.

Both witnesses referred to the need for greater communication. Deputy Perry put forward some concrete proposals from the scrutiny committee on an EU office in the Oireachtas. Regarding media and press strategy, has either witness examined models in other parliaments to deal with that aspect of the work of their committees? Much work is being done on communication for all Oireachtas committees and our experience in this committee is that it is difficult to get any interest in European affairs. Have the witnesses examined any new ways of trying to reach a wider audience and generate media interest in the activity of their committees?

Deputy John Perry

Deputy Creighton made some very important points. The recommendations include significant reforms that could very effectively be brought in with the support of the Government. All but 19 of the directives have been transposed into Irish law up to June 2008. The mandate system is operated by the Danish Parliament and has been very successful there. It might be difficult to expect that.

Having spoken to the Ministers on this issue, they recognise the benefit of having an involvement that would give a clear definition of the time we are given to debate the issue in Dáil and Seanad Éireann. All the documents come into Dáil Éireann simultaneously from the Commission. We have them on the same day. We can even get the work plan six months in advance. This is not a question of documentation arriving unannounced. Due to traceability we know exactly what is coming. There is a 12-month plan for the future; it is like a business plan and one can look at it. If we felt there was an issue of great concern, the Minister could come before us and we could debate the matter before it came before Dáil Éireann. The biggest issue that I can see is the lack of awareness of EU work in Dáil Éireann. I was elected 11 years ago and, despite all of the directives, people assumed that the Lisbon treaty would see powers removed from Dáil Éireann. The treaty would actually have given enhanced powers to the Dáil to make recommendations.

This is all about improving legislation. It is our intention to look at the interpretation of legislation because in certain cases the transposition of directives and their interpretation under national law can vary from one country to the next. New powers were given in 2007 and were well-researched by a good legal team. I feel there should be a debate in the Dáil once a month on EU matters and we should work with the Chairmen of the relevant committees. The sectoral committees give out documents and it is clear that it would be worthwhile to work with them on issues they feel are important. These committees should be involved in plenary sessions so their recommendations can be sent to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny.

I think that for added value the suggested debate in the Dáil is a no-brainer because we are talking about integration, subsidiarity and giving autonomous powers back to Dáil Éireann. We can make solid recommendations. I have spoken to Ministers about this and have concluded that it is all about perfecting legislation; it could not be more perfect than having Members of the Dáil and Seanad making beneficial recommendations.

I think there is a major problem in the Oireachtas with the media strategy, though I know the matter is being revisited. We need a dedicated channel dealing with EU business and committee business. One might do great work on documents in the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny but local and national press outlets will not report it. The media will consider these issues more relevant and important when they know they are being scrutinised in Dáil Éireann. The media's interest will then be passed on to the general public. Citizens perceive that the work of the Oireachtas on EU business is lacking and I can see why. We have failed to communicate and this sub-committee can strongly recommend that Standing Orders be changed; these matters should be discussed in the Chamber. We would work closely with MEPs and I feel that Members of Dáil Éireann want more interaction with European institutions; not just in the form of visits but by visiting committees. Deputies would be more aware of what is going on in Europe, which is important.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

My views on some of these subjects might be different but this should not be regarded as a conflict, it is just a question of my experience.

I have mixed views about the mandate system that applies in Sweden, which has existed for some time. It ties up Ministers en route and on return. Ministers will realise that mandates may or may not correspond with one’s wishes and objectives. I believe the mandate system is not the ultimate answer. However, I do believe there should be a system that is separate from the Commission and its decisions and directives. For instance, there is no provision to vet what a Minister does at the Council of Ministers, whether or not it is in accord with national interests. There is no way to return to Parliament on such a matter, other than through statements in the House, which do not mean anything. I have had the pleasure, honour and privilege of attending Council of Ministers meetings. There are two roles — the parliamentary role and the Executive role and we must try to marry the two, but there is a possible conflict.

To my mind, the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny has an important role of watching for the directives or instruments coming down the track, identifying them and cross-checking them, not just one or twice but on several occasions. I chaired the committee previously, when it was a committee in its own right. At that time, we had an expert consultant who vetted everything six months beforehand. The problem was that it would require more than one meeting of the committee per week to be really up to speed. The difficulty is that it is difficult to get members of Parliament in any country to devote such time on a weekly basis because members are out of sight and out of mind and will certainly not get any media coverage for it. However, it is deeply technical and hugely important.

An interesting question was raised on the Irish Commissioner. There is no such thing as an Irish Commissioner. There should never be recognition of a Commissioner by any country as being the representative of the country. That is not what the European Commission is supposed to do. The European Commissioners are representative of the entire European community, as Deputy Creighton knows. They all know that, but there has been the tendency in recent years for some Commissioners in a moment of weakness to identify unnecessarily with the member state from whence they come. That is a disaster. No doubt that has led to problems.

Chairman

I must call Deputy Dooley in one moment.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

That is the only point I wanted to make there.

There will always be conflict between members of parliament and MEPs when they come into the one arena. That is in the nature of it. There is nothing we can do about that.

The joint committees on European scrutiny and on European affairs, or their equivalent, can do a great deal of work through the COSAC, which is being revised at present, where they can bring their national parliamentary views to the attention of the Commission, the European Parliament and anybody else who will listen to them.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome the Chairmen and thank them for their worthwhile contribution. I have a couple of questions. The first point is to try to ensure that we define, perhaps in this report, a delineation of responsibilities within the various committees. Even based on the presentation, one can see that there is a certain greying of the lines. While it will not necessarily cause problems, it is important to focus the work of the two committees.

I ask Deputy Durkan for his ideas on the promotion of the vision of Europe. It seems that throughout the Lisbon treaty referendum debate we spent a great deal of time discussing a treaty to reform treaties that had existed previously and the reaction from the public was that they did not know what we had in the first place to reform. We were clearly working off a very low foundation. Is there a role for the Joint Committee on European Affairs in trying to promote the vision of Europe, the benefits that membership of the Union has brought to us and what it can bring to us in a modern environment, whether in dealing with energy security, climate change, the banking crisis or whatever. Is there a greater role for the committee in espousing the virtues of the European project?

I ask Deputy Perry to define more closely at some point, perhaps by way of a written submission or presentation to the sub-committee, the exact role of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. From my vantage point it seems to be the committee that almost ensures the protections for the Irish people so that we get over this complex that there is somebody in Brussels within the bureaucracy who is trying continuously to catch us out, and doing so in a subterranean way. That is the role of the scrutiny committee as well as dealing with the issue of the mandate or the scrutiny reserve. We have had good presentations on that from several delegations.

Will Deputy Durkan comment on the notion of the scrutiny reserve rather than the mandate? Recognising the party structure in this Parliament, if we go down the road of a mandate, Members will revert to defensive party positions or the Government position to ensure there is always a Government majority and, therefore, the mandate would be a fait accompli for whatever the Minister wants rather than pulling back and considering the scrutiny reserve to generate a less partisan debate while, at the same time, providing the level of feedback and debate needed in advance of a Minister taking a position.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Reform is an issue raised also by Deputy Perry. When I chaired the European affairs committee between 1997 and 2002, we produced 12 reports and perhaps one was debated in the House. That was a message in itself about the importance accorded to an important issue, despite our heavy dependence on Europe for infrastructural support and funding. Deputy Perry is correct that there must be discussion in the Houses. Members are anxious not to share too much space with MEPs, for example, because there is a clash of interests. It remains to be seen how the two can be married together.

I refer to the delineation of the committees. It is utterly important that the scrutiny committee has all the support it can have. That includes the means to identify everything that is likely to have an impact not only immediately but in two or three years when something else comes down the track in order that nobody can say he or she was not aware of it. If the proper procedures are put in place, it should be possible to do that. The European affairs committee has a slightly different role as it interacts with the European institutions and perhaps conflicts with them in turn on the basis that it represents the national Parliament and it should be in the business of advising the institutions in Europe as to the implications of what is proposed at a particular time, which can have an impact.

Whichever committee has responsibility needs to take that responsibility seriously because the greatest danger of the multiplicity of committees in the House is that something will fall between two stools. In the nature of things, that will happen. Referral to the sectoral committees is a good idea to get through the work but it can be dangerous unless one is absolutely certain every aspect of the concerns originally identified by the committee is followed up and resolved.

The Council meetings are hugely important. We have little control over them. There is no procedure and I tried to do it in my own way in the past but I ran into considerable flak over it. We send negotiators of all political shapes and hues to Brussels or to the holder of the EU Presidency to negotiate on behalf of the country. It is no good to come back afterwards and say "Brussels did it" because that damages and undermines the entire European concept.

Deputy John Perry

Deputy Dooley asked me to define the exact role of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. Its role is to carry out its scrutiny function by engaging in an in-depth analysis of the documentation sent to it from various committees. Examples of matters we have considered include the VAT directive. I feel we are losing a huge opportunity in this area. We have examined the fuels and emissions directive. We have studied the likely impact of the directive on fishing activities, which is of huge interest to coastal communities, when it is implemented into Irish law. We have scrutinised the EU telecommunications package. We take careful advice before compiling each six-monthly report. We select the EU matters which are most likely to have an impact, adverse or otherwise, on Irish citizens. The model we are using is very effective. Our reports are detailed and concise.

If the Seanad or the Dáil were to debate an issue like the likelihood of VAT changes, the hygiene of foodstuffs or the regulation of country markets, there would be great interest in the discussion. If sufficient time were set aside by the Whips, the debate would help to make Europe more relevant. People feel that directives are introduced by the EU without debate. Vested interests, including local radio, national press and niche market press such as fishing publications, are interested in these matters. If we were to advise interests in the fishing industry that this debate was to take place in the Seanad and the Dáil, they would know exactly what is going on. They would be able to raise concerns with the Minister. When laws are introduced from Europe, there is a perception that no debate is allowed on them. It is not the case that it is a fait accompli.

The Oireachtas has huge powers. I refer to the double-check system, for example. The Committee of Public Accounts, which I had the privilege of chairing for two years, holds the Government and its negotiating position to account. It is a question of good corporate governance and value for money. The rules are quite similar in this instance. In my opening address, I alluded to certain improvements which could be made within the powers we already have. I am delighted to say that the Government has agreed to discuss a report in the Dáil on 13 November. It has also proposed a date, to be agreed by the committee, on which other important directives can be debated before Christmas. It is clear that actions speak louder than words. It is good to have an opportunity for a debate in the Dáil on issues that concern many vested interests.

Ireland is a small country. We need to consider the impact on Ireland of legislation coming from Europe. Certain non-governmental organisations feel that the Oireachtas rubber-stamps all legislation. That is not the case. The exact role of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny is to act as a watchdog. We have to hold the Government to account. We need to inform citizens. The role of the Oireachtas is critically important. We need to do whatever it takes to ensure that the work of committees, especially those dealing with European matters, is made known to the public. If the only way to do that is to hold a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny outside these buildings, so be it. We should go to Castletownbere or Donegal to consider issues that have an impact on fishing communities. We should invite representatives of the fishing industry to such meetings. Small business people should be present when we are debating issues pertaining to small business. They should be reminded that we are aware of the issues that affect them. If we take such action, we will diminish the democratic deficit.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

I thank the two Chairmen, Deputies Durkan and Perry, for coming to this meeting and making presentations to the sub-committee. Their comments echo what representatives of the Danish, British and German parliaments have said at this forum. They spoke about the need to make our national parliaments more European. There is a responsibility on committees like the joint committees on European scrutiny and on European affairs to do that. Much of the time, I feel like the committees are operating in an exclusive little world of their own. The rest of the Parliament seems to be unaware of and disinterested in what we are doing. It is a big responsibility. The Chairmen of the relevant committees face a challenge in trying to increase the impact their committees have on this Parliament.

Deputies Durkan and Perry have made some helpful suggestions. It seems like a good idea to refer draft legislation to the sectoral committees. Much of the expertise on many of these issues can be accessed at the various committees. A wide range of legislation comes before the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, as Deputy Perry said. We cannot expect a single committee to have the expertise to scrutinise a wide range of legislation and identify issues which relate to the national interest so the frequent referral of issues to the sectoral committees would be a very good idea. I was struck by what the representative from the House of Lords told us about its European affairs committee. As Chairman he tends to go out when he can and speak to schools and businesses about the role of his committee. I cannot imagine how he has time to do that, but if it were possible it would be a very good outreach strategy to bring the work of the committees out to the community and particular sectors and make clear the important work the committee is doing.

The other issue is publicising what the committees do. The media seems uninterested in anything European being discussed at a national level. As both witnesses said, often the good work the committees do is not reflected in any media coverage. I wonder whether the witnesses have any ideas on how we could improve that. This committee provides live webcasts and podcasts of its work on the Oireachtas website. Would there be any point in doing that with the work of our committees? Would people have any interest in viewing the proceedings of the committee? There is a challenge in how to try to make the issues we are discussing in the committees more media friendly. Some of the suggestions on bringing the issues into the plenary sessions of the Dáil and Seanad by amending their Standing Orders are very good because only when they are debated in a lively way in the Dáil and Seanad will the media take them seriously.

I am interested that both witnesses have referred to the mandate system that operates in the Danish Parliament and the scrutiny reserve system. Which do they think would be more suitable to our Parliament? There would be advantages and disadvantages to both. Does Deputy Durkan feel the GAERC briefings we get at the European affairs committee meetings are an effective way of monitoring what is happening and being decided at GAERC meetings, including the feedback we get from Ministers on the meetings they attend? Do the witnesses think the relationship between the EU affairs committee and the European scrutiny committee is satisfactory? Should there be more interaction or is there enough interaction between the two? If the work of both committees is to be made more effective, what resources might the witnesses need?

Deputy John Perry

Senator de Búrca asked very good questions. I spoke to my British counterpart yesterday and he said 14 people work on their committee. While I have tremendous respect for the backup of the European scrutiny committee and I compliment the legal team and the secretarial staff, who do fantastic work, European legislation and all the relevant issues create a large workload. The point ties in with the other points, especially with the cross-referral to committees and working in partnership with other Chairmen. There is a level of interaction with other Chairmen on an issue that may have been referred which will be mandated to return to the committee within six weeks. I will double check that. Having a meeting with those Chairmen and cross-checking, as Deputy Durkan said, is critically important. Taking the number of directives we deem to be suitable to be scrutinised by the committee with 500 pieces of legislation coming in every year, deciding what is relevant and what will impact is a huge amount of work. The question of resources must be examined.

I am very happy with the defined role of scrutiny. It is defined in legislation. The terms of reference are very clear and clearly define what we are obliged to do. Deputy Durkan will speak on that issue. I come from a business background. When one looks at the role of small businesses in communities, they are like acorns. Perceptions of the European Union and its directives have been detrimental to the Union's success. A great deal of work has been done with representative bodies. Interacting in communities with vested interests such as fishermen and education providers is very important and should be encouraged.

Webcasts are a fantastic facility which we must market. Those who are interested in politics will know how to use it. There should be a campaign to make it known through local press outlets that there are webcasts. One can link with Dáil Éireann thanks to the proliferation of computers and broadband availability in certain areas. If I asked ten people in my constituency about the webcasts, they would not know anything about them. The webcasts of live debates in Leinster House should be kept simple and perfected.

I believe in politics, political debate and the interaction of parliamentarians, not just committee members. In the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny there are members who know exactly what is going on but, unfortunately, due to workload, Members of Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann cannot give the necessary time to this area. That is where the information deficit lies in Leinster House. There is a democratic deficit outside the Houses but there is also a democratic deficit inside because Members of Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann are not aware of the work being done in this area.

The reserve system can be easily perfected. A huge commitment has been made by the Government, from the Taoiseach down, to explain the role of national parliaments in the European Union.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I emphasise the question of resources. If we intend to remain a significant player in the European field, we must allocate more resources to this area. We are way behind everyone else. As I said, I attended the COSAC meeting which should always be attended, although I know that this is difficult because the sub-committee is meeting a great deal. We did not attend the previous COSAC meeting in Slovenia because the Whips would not allow people to travel while the new Taoiseach was being installed. That was a very bad message to send: we were absent in the aftermath of the referendum. COSAC is a means by which members of national parliaments, however they are selected, represent their countries at European level in order that they will not blame the European Union or themselves; it provides for accountability.

Reference has been made to the Danish experience and national parliaments. The Danes are not in the inner sanctum of the European circuit, where they were 15 years ago. They have slipped from that position for many reasons, including entry to the euro zone and many other issues. That the Danes have slipped is a fact of life and should be borne in mind. The Danes know this and I am sure have expressed the matter to the sub-committee, as they did to us.

The House of Lords does a very good job as I said to the UK representatives, but the United Kingdom is not an Internal Market driver in the European Union, of which we should be mindful. We have all met eurosceptics recently, of whom there are quite a few in the United Kingdom. There are also some in Berlin and Denmark. Their objective for the future of the European Union is absolutely different from that of the sub-committee. They want the European Union to be a loosely hanging economic association with little political and social cohesion. This is where the big argument occurs and I have no doubt the sub-committee has already addressed the issue. It is fundamental and will come to the fore at some stage.

The best way to generate public interest in the work of the committee is to broadcast the entire proceedings of the Oireachtas. It is as short and simple as that. When it is possible to see the proceedings of the Oireachtas on television, and not on the Internet, the public will see how their public representatives work in the Houses on an ongoing basis and will judge them on that basis.

The General Affairs and External Relations Council, GAERC, is a good system. We get good warning of the agenda and the Minister and Minister of State have been very helpful. The problem arises in the run up to a Council meeting when decisions are taken which may affect the future evolution of our economy and our relationship with the European Union. The committee system has no control over that at present. Government policy may or may not run parallel with what the parliamentarians see as a viable and necessary objective. That is where the void is. I can point out deficiencies in the system and I am sure other members can do so also. If one can ask in good time why something is happening one might be able to influence matters.

Deputy Joe Costello

I thank the Chairmen of both committees for giving us of their wisdom. Both Chairmen have considerable experience of EU institutions. What is the current thinking of COSAC? What is the view of the people they meet in Europe about Ireland's position and our influence or lack of it? What, if anything, has changed since the Lisbon treaty referendum?

The public has a proclivity to respond negatively to Government sponsored referendums. We saw this in the referendums in France and the Netherlands, where Governments were unpopular at the time. I would not dare to comment on the popularity of our own Government at the time of the last referendum. Would there be a value in the Oireachtas rather than the Government fronting a referendum, with a major role for the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny? Could the elected members of the Oireachtas front the referendum so that dislike of a particular Government would not affect the outcome and there might not be such confusion of issues?

Senator de Búrca asked about resources. Members could do with more staff. However, Deputies and Senators are also a fragile resource. Do we have time to get involved in a greatly reformed scrutiny system?

What about the Oireachtas itself and the Government? There has been considerable criticism of the transposition of directives. We seem to be losing our rights of oversight of those. They are, increasingly, transposed through the use of statutory instruments, over which we have no oversight. It is a mere bureaucratic exercise. What do the Chairmen think would be an appropriate scrutiny model? Reference was made to the scrutiny reserve and the mandate system. Could an Irish model be forged from all the elements involved? What are Deputy Durkan's own preferences? What are his views on scrutinising what has been drafted, rather than carrying out post factum scrutiny? Could we extend the parameters by carrying out scrutiny of the input into directives and how they are drafted?

Prior to the Deputy's appearance before the sub-committee, it was attended by non-governmental organisations, stakeholders and the church and they all expressed an inordinate amount of suspicion of the European Union and its institutions. There seems to be a view that its aspirations are not being met in the course of implementation. These organisations seem to hold the view, as do the public, that the good intentions underlying the principles of the European Union are not being delivered in the way claimed.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I forgot to mention a point. Some of us have been speaking in schools in our constituencies for many years to promote the good causes of the institutions. It is not a new idea. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission has become involved and seems to be competing with Deputies and Senators in that respect. I am not sure that is of benefit and it needs to be borne in mind.

The perception of COSAC is very important. There was palpable dismay among our COSAC colleagues that Ireland had failed to ratify the Lisbon treaty. Their concern was twofold. One aspect was a concern for Ireland and its future role in the European Union. The other was on their own behalf and that of other member states which are waiting to take on their responsibilities but which are in the early stages of European integration in comparison to ourselves who have been a member since 1973. There is huge disappointment, as well as anxiety. Although they are very courteous, every speech has referred to the fact that the treaty has not yet been ratified. The same points have been made at every opportunity in the direction of the Czech Republic and Poland; therefore, others are in the same boat. Some used emotive language and highlighted the success of the European Union to date, emphasising the need to continue that success.

The question of future referenda was raised. As Deputy Costello will be aware, the issues put to the public can conflict with the information made available at the time. A second referendum can bring about a reverse outcome of the first if the information is different. That happened in respect of the Nice treaty but the economic situation was also different, things being more positive at the time of the second referendum. No other issues arose. The first and second Nice referenda were identical. In fact, both were more restrictive than any other referendum that has taken place, particularly the one on the Lisbon treaty. The referendum on the Lisbon treaty tried to identify and resolve the issues which were causing a problem throughout Europe in member state parliaments. It is important to recognise that the difficulty arose from the question of individualisation, the right to govern and the fear of being set aside.

I dealt with the issue of Members' time and effort many years ago. I have often said that, given our other parliamentary commitments, some means have to be found whereby the Members who devote their time in this way and make the requisite sacrifices have to be recognised for so doing. I do not know how that can be achieved. It should be remembered, however, that if any of us is remiss in the role we must play, a huge price will be paid.

Deputy John Perry

Following on from Deputy Durkan's point on the role of COSAC, there is a high expectation that there will be a road map at the end of December with a clear line that will see the Lisbon treaty ratified. This must be seen against the backdrop of recent difficulties, especially the major financial crisis, instability in the financial markets and the issue of job creation across Europe. The benefit of the European Union to Ireland is evident. The French Presidency was very decisive when it dealt with the difficulties encountered across Europe and represented a good example of the strength of Europe with decisive leadership.

In terms of Parliament fronting a referendum, the majority of parliamentarians agreed on the last occasion that ratification of the Lisbon treaty was fundamental to Ireland's success. The future of the European Union depends on full support from parliamentarians. Perhaps there was not sufficient engagement by Seanad Éireann, Dáil Éireann and county councillors during the referendum campaign. Perhaps the treaty was not sold correctly. It was a failure on the part of politicians across all parties that while they totally subscribed to the treaty, they did not follow through by knocking on doors. In business if one loses sight of one's customer, one loses one's business. It is evident that we lost sight of the voter. We can have all the media spin in the world, television programmes and whatever else, but one cannot beat the interaction of politicians who are practitioners in the field looking people straight in the eye and telling them how they will benefit. In terms of resources for representatives, I understand there are financial constraints, which poses a difficulty. It would be of real benefit if the secretariat could facilitate the work of Seanad Éireann and Dáil Éireann by providing Members with a certain level of scripts and simple briefing documents.

The transposition of directives into Irish law and the use of statutory instruments have been hallmarks of the failure in regard to how the European Union is perceived. Directives were brought forward and not discussed. Statutory instruments were brought forward without debate. That is not good enough. People will not accept it. There needs to be a clear understanding and consensus. Furthermore, directives are transposed into law in other European countries at different levels and with different interpretations. That should not happen either.

Scrutiny of and input into the work plan are also very important. In that respect, we are very well served by the COSAC secretariat in Brussels. We also have a very good liaison office in Brussels which could do a very effective job in warning us of what is coming down the track in order that we could have an input at an early stage. While the 2002 Act moved a long way there is still room for considerable improvement. There remains a big deficit in that it only requires the Minister to have regard to the recommendations.

A precedent has been set by the Committee of Public Accounts. It is one of the most notable committees of the Houses and is recognised throughout the country as doing an effective and independent job. Independently of the Government, the Comptroller and Auditor General reports to the PAC. A report on an important issue of EU legislation in the Dáil or Seanad should be sent to the Minister, who should take its consideration on board. The Minister and civil servants take seriously the concerns of the C&AG and the PAC. Such a system of scrutiny of EU legislation could easily be brought into Irish law. It would complement the reserve system and would provide a double check. The Government would be held to account on the deliberations and concerns of this committee. Time could be given to this in the Seanad.

Deputy Costello has raised relevant points. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to express my view of them. I thoroughly enjoy my job as Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. Deputy Costello remarked that it provided a model. He also stressed the importance of this sub-committee. Its recommendations will provide direction for future action. The interaction of Deputies and Senators is essential. Committees have been effective but they have failed to communicate with the public or even with Members of the Oireachtas. Communication with Members could be improved. Agreement could be made with the Whips and constructive debates could be held on issues of concern. Deputy Costello mentioned the possibility of giving one day per month to EU matters. I could engage with the Chairmen of other committees who had dealt with proposals relevant to their own areas and they could be involved in the debate in the Chamber. The Government must take this issue seriously if it is concerned with the role of national parliaments.

We have gained considerably from our experience in Europe but we have taken the benefits of EU membership for granted. Scrutiny of EU legislation and dialogue with the voters is extremely important. It is most important that we are now talking to people and not at them. We are explaining what Europe means for them. The citizens of Ireland should have an entitlement to make known their views and concerns about a directive before it is implemented. Draft directives should be put on the webcast system so that citizens can express their views on them before they are implemented.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I emphasise some of the points raised by Deputy Costello. It would be eminently possible to have the referendum fronted by the Parliament. It is a possible way to resolve the unpopularity of the Government. It would overcome the difficulty of unpopular governments, as we saw during the French and Dutch referendum campaigns.

However, we need a fundamental reappraisal of the degree to which EU governments defer or refer to the committee system. Some Departments regard committees as an adjunct to the Department. This is not so. The committee system is for parliamentarians. It is part of the parliamentary system and for parliamentarians to adjudicate on. That area has huge potential.

There is a feeling among our European colleagues that any decision Ireland makes after the EU elections can have a profound and significant impact on the future of the European Union and Ireland's involvement in it. That is self-evident.

I also wish to mention the transposition debate, which was referred to by Deputy Perry. Transposition of directives into Irish law is sometimes done without debate while in some cases there is a mere reference. Scrutiny requires more than one day per month. There should be a reference every week to issues of this nature whereby there can be some input by Members of the Oireachtas.

Twenty years ago, the committee had access to directives while they were being drafted. At that time, we devised a monitoring and consultative system in order to trap directives before they were completed. A difficulty arose because when parliaments went into summer recess the European system kept going. Directives could be put into law very quickly while national parliaments were in recess.

It may be the case that aspiration is not met by performance. I was a member of the convention that drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The convention heard submissions from NGOs from all over Europe and from numerous people who appeared not to be represented by parliament. When members of parliament appear not to represent the wider interests of the community it is seen by many as a failure of parliament. We must always be conscious of what we are doing in that area.

In recent years, successful partnership agreements have been reached in Ireland. Those agreements which dealt with housing were an absolute failure because the social partners did not understand the subject. They had no experience of housing, did not understand it and could not come to grips with it. Housing is a subject more appropriate to parliamentarians, who are involved in such work on a daily basis. There will always be a problem where NGOs and civil society feel that parliament is failing them. The public has a healthy cynicism about parliamentarians. Whether or not it is justified remains to be seen.

Chairman; I thank both Deputies for your contributions and for being good enough to listen to my guidance and finish on time.

Sitting suspended at 3.33 p.m. and resumed at 3.40 p.m.