We will save the song and dance until the presentations are over. I am delighted to welcome the former EU ambassador, Mr. John Bruton, and Mr. Alan Dukes. Both men were formerly Members of these Houses and Ministers. They are very welcome and we are pleased to have them in attendance. I invite Mr. Dukes to address the committee first, followed by Mr. Bruton and then we will take questions.
The Houses of the Oireachtas and EU Legislation: Discussion
Mr. Alan Dukes
Go raibh maith agat. I read with considerable attention the report which is being prepared. I understand the Chairman would like me and Mr. Bruton to give our views on how we feel the committee might carry out its role of investigation and assessment of European legislation.
I do not believe there is anything to add to the report in regard to the matters contained therein but I wish to add a couple of general remarks on the basis of having experience in dealing with this legislation at various levels. First, while the red card process and the concerns about subsidiarity are clearly very important issues and are dealt with extensively in the report, it is essential to remember that those two concerns are likely to be matters that arise rather infrequently. There is a much bigger concern with the normal body of ongoing legislation.
I understand a good deal of work has been done on the committee structure in the past and the Houses of the Oireachtas have an antenna in Brussels that is charged with feeding through information on the development of legislation. However, it is essential that the Legislature, in this case the Houses of the Oireachtas, should get onto the same plane of activity in regard to legislation as do lobby groups. This is for a number of reasons. First, the process of development of legislation in the European Union is, with no disrespect to any person present, a great deal more open than we are used to in this country. There is a much more open consultative process on legislation, from birth to maturity, in the European Union system than we are used to. That presents opportunities which have always been used very effectively by lobby groups. That is not a criticism. I do not believe these opportunities have been used to anything like the same effect by members of national Parliaments. One of their concerns should be to make up that gap.
In my view, that factor is dealt with in the terms of reference of the committee by the requirement to consider the role of Oireachtas stakeholders and the business of maintreaming the work. The first point I would make is that the Oireachtas needs to get onto the same playing pitch as lobby groups, in terms of this preparation. Second, and an issue for the parties, is that in talking about the review process, the terms of reference again refer to the roles of the political parties. Political parties need to sharpen up their act, so to speak, on involvement in these preparations quite separately from the work of the committee.
There is a general concern here. Particular attention is paid, as I mentioned, to the red card business and to subsidiarity and particular attention is drawn to the need to look at the work of Eurojust and Europol. What is said in those two connections is very important but the same should apply to all other areas of legislation. If I were to take one example from the not too distant past of the unpreparedness of both the Oireachtas and the Government for legislation, it would be the case of the European arrest warrant. In that case, the Minister of the day has been on record several times as saying that the entire issue arrived on his desk very unexpectedly. That kind of thing should not happen because there are enough signals in the early part of the European Union's process to make sure that national parliaments and Governments have adequate forewarning of what is going to happen.
I will conclude on the following point because I believe the issues are fairly clear. It is essential that there be an arrangement of mutual understanding between the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the other committees of the Oireachtas for a structural division of the labour involved and for a proper co-ordination of the work. As I understand it, the infrastructure of the European affairs committee produces information on what is coming through the machine. The next step is to ensure the issues concerned are considered properly by the relevant committees of the Houses and that consideration then needs to be given to co-ordination of positions on connected pieces of legislation. I realise that is a difficult thing to do because every committee has a very heavy workload. However, it would be useful to have some co-ordination of effort so that members of the committees get the best value for the time they spend on their work.
I believe my final remark is worth making because it relates to concerns. If, in accordance with recommendations made in this committee, committees are to meet Ministers shortly before they go to Brussels for Council meetings, the system will not be working properly if that is the only contact that happens. There should be contact with Ministers and Departments at earlier stages in the legislation so that the consultation process can be as fruitful as possible. It is a reflection of the lack of preparation work of this kind. I speak from some personal experience in this. Ministers involved in decision making in Brussels are probably much more familiar with the views of interest groups and civil society groups in Ireland than they are with the views of people in the Oireachtas. If this work is to produce the kind of results it should we should reverse that position.
I thank Mr. Dukes and call on Mr. Bruton.
Mr. John Bruton
The first thing the committee must do in preparing its programme is to recognise the reality of life in the Oireachtas. This is a highly competitive place. Everybody here is competing not only on behalf of their party against another party but also with people in their own constituency for political survival. These forces of competition must be harnessed in order to make better overall scrutiny of European affairs. There is no point in trying to go against those forces. The idea that somehow or other there will be a collective Oireachtas view on what should be the reaction to a particular EU proposal is to my mind naive. There are different parties here and they will have different approaches. They will have different reasons for taking different approaches to any proposal. Therefore, the idea the Oireachtas can only act when everybody agrees across parties is a recipe for having the Oireachtas not act on the matter.
I remember when I came into politics first Garret FitzGerald said to me that it was possible to achieve whatever one wished as long as one could convince the European Union that it was good for the Union. In other words, the committee must find a way of convincing the powers that be in the European Union that what is good for the committee and good for a more active involvement of the Oireachtas in the process is also good for the European Union. This will be facilitated by the proposals tabled today by the European Commission on the closer management of the euro. The Commission will propose more powers for itself for the auditing of the accounts of Governments not only on an annual basis, but on an accrual basis and on a basis for the future. The Commission will propose it should take greater powers to examine developments in the competitiveness and credit expansion of countries and whether such credit is going unduly into one sector, as was the case in Spain and Ireland. The Commission proposes that it should be allowed to examine more deeply the domestic policy of countries to ensure they never again get into the situation in which Greece has found itself.
The problem for the Commission is that having found out this and reported it to the eurogroup, it has very few mechanisms available to enforce good discipline on member states afterwards. The principal discipline available to it is the imposition of a fine but it is perverse to impose a fine on a country while complaining about the fact that it cannot pay its obligations and the proposed cure is that it should take on additional obligation. How can this problem of enforcement of good governance be solved? This is where the Oireachtas, especially the Opposition, and other national parliaments come into the picture.
Let us suppose the European Commission prepares a report on the medium-term financial situation of Ireland and its position in regard to meeting the financial burden of its ageing population up to 2050 or 2060. If the Commission is obliged to consult with the committees of the national parliament, specifically with the Opposition, then it could harness the Opposition and the national parliament as a means of disciplining the Government of the day in a more effective way than the imposition of fines could ever manage. Therefore, the financial crisis and the greater integration of the European Union or, at least, the eurogroup that will result is an opportunity for the committee to achieve its objectives of putting forward the idea in Brussels that it serves to help the Commission. It is as if I were speaking for the committee but if the Commission involves the committee, the Opposition and all the parties in a process, then the committee could help the Commission to compel whoever is in Government at a given time to do what it could not otherwise compel that Government to do in terms of responsible, long-term financing.
Let us suppose someone from the IMF, the OECD or the European Commission approached an Opposition politician and indicated that this year's budget is okay but that, given current trends with existing commitments, the calculations for the budget in three, four or five years from now suggest the Government is leading the country over the cliff. If an Opposition Member or such a committee as this one is informed as much about a particular budget, it creates a political opportunity in this very competitive environment for politicians outside Government to get that information and to make some advances for themselves in that area. This is what I mean by harnessing the competition.
Let us consider the analogy of the markets. They were supposed to discipline Greece but they completely failed to do so until Dubai failed to honour its debts and then, suddenly, they went into a great panic about Greece and everywhere else. The markets should have been a competitive means of enforcing financial discipline but, clearly, they were inadequate. I suggest the national parliaments of member states could do a better job than the markets in ensuring long-term fiscal sustainability for countries. Likewise, I suggest that when the IMF or the OECD prepare reports on this or any other country, they should be obliged to consult with the Opposition and the relevant committees of the House.
I have no wish to go on too long but I refer to other matters. It is vital to consider appointing rapporteurs for each important tranche of EU legislation. I have before me a list of the strategic initiatives scheduled for adoption in 2010, produced by the Commission. I suggest the committee examine this list and establish which of the proposals have some political mileage in them, because this is the way politicians consider things, and to determine who on the committee will be the rapporteur for each. It is an opportunity, especially for a backbencher who is not on the Front Bench or a junior Minister to be appointed as the rapporteur on important legislation and for that person to shine. The committee should harness that capacity. The individualism of politicians should be harnessed to achieve a better goal. This proposal has been made by others already.
The annual policy strategy published by the Commission in March is a good agenda which the committee should examine systematically with a view to finding suitable things. I noticed a reference on the website to co-operating with other EU parliaments. It is vital to use the red and yellow card mechanism. I agree with Mr. Dukes. If one gets to the point of using that system to stop something, it is too late. One needs to be in on the ground before a proposal is even produced to head it off such that there is no need to use one of those cards. However, if one does have to use one of those cards, one is supposed to co-operate with other national parliaments and one needs a given number of national parliaments. I understand this is what the IPEX Internet tool is used for. I checked the website and discovered several documents in Finnish, German and other languages. Apart from the title, nothing was in English. Of course Alan Dukes would understand all of it but I am afraid my Finnish is somewhat rusty. If that site is to be the means whereby a committee rapporteur can contact his counterpart in the Finnish or Latvian Parliaments on certain legislation, it is important that the material should be put in a language everyone has the capacity to understand.
I realise the committee has a representative in Brussels, Mr. Hamilton. His role is vital. It is only by moving in the corridors in the European Parliament and the Commission that one can find out what is going on. The committee should have him over here frequently to inform it of what is going on. The representative should be someone with good political antennae who can see an opportunity for members of the committee and who can see something that might interest Deputies Perry or O'Rourke and for which they could become the rapporteur. It is not enough to produce mind-numbing reports in Civil Service language. One needs someone who can see political opportunities because that is what people in politics are interested in and what the committee must harness if it wishes to achieve its goals.
I thank our witnesses. We have agreed a procedure for questioning. There will be one lead questioner from each of the political parties with a maximum of ten minutes for questions and comments. Then we will go back to the delegates and allow for supplementary questions. We will begin with Deputy O'Rourke, followed by Deputies Costello and Perry.
I thank the Chairman. I welcome Mr. John Bruton and Mr. Alan Dukes. They have a wealth of experience that even at this early stage we can see will be helpful.
I entered Dáil Éireann when Mr. Bruton started the committee system. Someone told me that if I did not speak on the first day I would never speak, so I spoke on Mr. Bruton's proposal - he was Leader of the House at that time - to set up committees. We have come a long way since then, but it is right to record that he gave the impetus to the House committees, which have proven to be good in so many ways, particularly for democracy.
I found Mr. Duke's contribution interesting because he spoke about the development of legislation. I agree that we come in too late on legislation. If we see a Minister or officials only when legislation has been or is about to be produced, it is far too late. We have no input at an early stage.
We can learn from what Europe has done in that regard. The Parliament comes in at the beginning when a thought or idea is set down and preparations are made. The first stage of legislation is the printing, and I have always thought the second stage involves meandering up the airy mountain and down the rocky glen - it does not contribute anything, as it is all already written down. I know from my years as a Minister that they say the Bill is printed so Members cannot decide to do certain things. We have the right to decide from an early stage how things can be done through lobby groups, consultations and meetings, and how the legislation can be affected - and eventually effected - for the good.
What Mr. Duke is preaching is heresy to the Civil Service, which has been used to dealing with legislation in a certain way. Europe is doing its business in the way the delegates have set out, which is not how we do things here. It is time for a complete change of mind.
The Joint Sub-Committee on the Review of the Role of the Oireachtas in European Affairs is one of the most important outcomes of the Lisbon treaty. On every street corner we heard people say they have no connection with Europe and do not know what is going on, all they know is that when a Bill is passed their lives can be changed.
We are committed to legislation; that is what we come in to Dáil Éireann to deal with. This committee can have an enormous and far-reaching effect in carrying out what the Lisbon treaty - to which we committed ourselves in the referendum - ordered us to do. It is hugely important, and we are only beginning to scratch the surface of it, even in the contributions we have heard today.
Mr. Dukes referred to the division of labour among the sub-committees. It is true. We have the main committee on European affairs, this committee and Deputy John Perry's committee. We have to carve out our own path, which is the most important one. We need contact between the Minister, the officials and the committee very early on, when only the thought is there or when the matter is presented in Europe. We should move in at that stage.
That brings me to Mr. Bruton's point that we must harness the forces of competition. We only got here through competition between various parties and various members of each party, so we must harness those forces. It has been announced that Europe will be involved in closer management of the euro and how we do our business. We all hope that does not mean we cannot go down our chosen path of corporation tax, for example. I fear that Europe will cast its beady eye over that, because it has given us a distinct edge, which we need to keep - but that discussion is for another day. We need to see how things develop.
We should harness the forces of our national Parliament and of this committee. I like the idea of having a rapporteur to deal with a particular piece of legislation. He or she will own that piece and poke out everything there is to know about it, including who one should meet to discuss it and the lobbying that should be done on it. The rapporteur will feel a sense of ownership until it becomes legislation, on which we will then give our views.
We have a good representative in Brussels, John Hamilton, who used to work in this House. Anyone in that post needs to be highly political, because Brussels is all about politics. He has to be moving and shaking, doing and talking, arguing and fighting, and lobbying and cajoling, all day every day.
Oddly enough, the current monetary difficulties give this committee a chance to use our skills, and our thoughts on what we have heard today, to move in on what will be fertile ground for the Commission, as it rightly seeks to keep an ever closer eye on what we are all doing in various countries. None of us in any eurozone country wants to go through what other countries have gone through, which we have experienced at a distance.
The contributions we heard today were excellent. They have sent my mind racing, as all our minds should be doing. I thank the Chairman for this opportunity.
Did I stick to the ten minutes?
Yes, that was nine minutes. The Deputy has set a good precedent.
I welcome our guests Mr. Bruton and Mr. Dukes, and thank them for their valuable contributions. We have much to consider.
Mr. Bruton said we need to take a reality check on our situation as parliamentarians - our timespan, our strong Executive and the fact we belong to political parties - and compare it with the quantity of material that comes from the European Union. We need to consider how we can deal with that to the maximum.
This committee and the committees on European affairs and European scrutiny have started from the point of considering how the Oireachtas can become more involved in all the things that are done, which is necessary. The extra powers that are being given demand an enhanced role for the Oireachtas rather than just for a committee. We need to consider how that role can be maximised, and how there can be greater discussion of European matters in the Houses of the Oireachtas, rather than relegating them to various committees.
Mr. Bruton said the Commission should be obliged to consult with national parliaments. During the current crisis, neither the Commission nor the Executive has consulted with the national Parliament. There has not been a single discussion in the Dáil on the proposals for the Greek bailout.
We need a mechanism whereby those important issues that emanate from Europe or are addressed in a European context - on which important decisions are being made on our behalf - are brought to committees or to the floor of the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Mr Bruton mentioned that it is too late if we only see the Minister as he or she goes out the door to get on a plane to Brussels. We will not have too much influence on what the Minister will say in the Council of Ministers, nor on what the Taioseach says in the European Council. What structures can we put in place that would allow a more robust, broader involvement than what we have currently in terms of the national Parliament exercising a role?
In the context of the Commission and the lobbying, all the suggestions the delegates made are excellent but how can an effective strategy be put in place? We have our man in Brussels, Mr. John Hamilton, but that is a long way from having an effective mechanism. If we want to influence what the Commission is doing, how can that be done? Can it be done in some structured fashion prior to the Commission putting together its annual programme or in the context of amending that programme? What lobbying mechanism can be used? I do not know the experience the delegates might have in that regard but we should try to expand to ensure the input is greater, but with a structured mechanism in place. That would ensure it is not just a case of somebody flying out on the day and hoping they will meet somebody.
I was particularly struck by the proposal for a rapporteur. It is an excellent idea and it would be very advantageous. It already exists to some extent in the committees but it would be extremely advantageous in terms of the work we are doing, and it could be shared on the sectoral committees.
The delegates might comment on the other important area where powers are being given to the Oireachtas, namely, the justice and home affairs area where we have an opt-in mechanism. Many decisions are being made in that area but how would that operate? Decisions would need to be made at an early stage, at least on the principle of the proposals coming forward, if Ireland is to be involved in drafting proposals in the Europol and Eurojust areas. Can the delegates suggest any structures in that respect?
Those are the main issues I would like to see addressed. How can we alter the way we do business to ensure we get a better input and that not just the committee system but the Oireachtas as a whole can get involved in the European project? So much legislation is coming from Europe we are not treating it seriously.
Someone suggested that the Seanad should be involved to a greater degree in European matters. Could it deal with legislation coming forward in much the same way as the Dáil deals with legislation coming through on the domestic front? In other words, could it take the initial responsibility? Currently, virtually all legislation from Europe is transposed through statutory instrument but it never sees the light of day. We do not debate it. We deal with legislation from Europe in a fundamentally different way to the way we deal with domestic legislation. That is a major imbalance in these matters. As a result, matters will arise in the Dáil today on fisheries policy and the way fishermen are treated. Legislation was introduced by statutory instrument rather than in plenary hearing. That has been a running sore for years and fishermen are now effectively criminalised, are being fined and so on. They are being treated in a criminal fashion largely because there was no accountability or examination of the statutory instrument.
The question is the way we manage to deal with the inordinate amount of legislative proposals coming through. To refer to Mr. John Bruton's point about the reality check, there is limited time for debate. There is a limited number of votes in European legislation and whatever we do we must be practical in doing it.
I welcome the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, and Mr. Alan Dukes. This is an important meeting in terms of Mr. Bruton's experience as European ambassador and I compliment him on the excellent role he played in representing Europe in America, and the many engagements over that period.
In terms of where we stand currently, there was a democratic deficit in the country prior to the Lisbon treaty but in terms of the successful conclusion of the referendum, the role given to Dáil Éireann was a defined role. The democratic deficit was apparent and debated by everybody. There was a huge deficit of information in schools and third level colleges and as we speak there is not a kiosk with information on Europe in Leinster House. We have the European Parliament Office on Molesworth Street but I pointed out to the Commission yesterday that 50,000 students come into Leinster House yet there is not one piece of information in Leinster House on the role of Ireland in Europe. That is a major opportunity lost. In terms of the logistics, 500 items of legislation come before Dáil Éireann from Europe and simultaneously from the Commission. The new responsibility of this Oireachtas is to deal decisively with that legislation.
To refer to the 80-20 principle, one must be selective in going through every item of legislation that will have an impact. Deputy Costello mentioned the role of statutory instruments but the process of dealing with those is all over the shop, so to speak. The Joint Committee on European Affairs deals with the initial evaluation of Green Papers. The point Mr. Dukes made about the lobby groups is important. I am aware from his experiences in Brussels that, regrettably, prior to the Green Paper being produced or the birth of any documentation there is very little debate on it. Since we joined the European Union, more than 98% of all directives, many of which were controversial, were transposed into Irish law by statutory instrument without any debate. A recommendation was made here last week that all statutory instruments should be debated prior to the Minister signing them into law. Would the delegates agree with the concept of statutory instruments being debated or circulated to every Oireachtas Member prior to the Minister signing them into law? In that way it could trigger a debate if a concern was raised. That was a worthwhile idea.
The Departments carry out impact assessments of statutory instruments, which are not circulated to Oireachtas Members, something I only found out last week. That is remiss because people are cynical of Europe and we have a duty to ensure that we fulfil our obligation to the Irish people. In that regard major debates were held throughout the country on the enhanced role of the Oireachtas in European Affairs and integration into the Oireachtas.
On the point raised about subsidiarity and breach of subsidiarity, we worked effectively on that with Mr. John Hamilton but in essence will the subsidiarity issue ever be in reached because by the time we get to that point it will be important to get a number of countries to agree on issues of subsidiarity? We had one or two pilot schemes on subsidiarity and the proportionality of issues but when we consider the role of Dáil Éireann and the perception on the part of the general public, there has been a lack of debate in that regard. It is impossible to get worthwhile reports on the Order Paper and get the Whips to arrange for them to be debated in the Chamber. They talk the talk but it is another matter when it comes to engaging on issues with Members in the Chamber. We discuss worthwhile legislation in these committees and invite vested interests to carry out impact assessments, which is important also.
The point regarding lobby groups made by Mr. Dukes is an important one. Mr. Hamilton is doing an outstanding job. Some 500 items of legislation are received from the Commission every year. Given that Mr. Hamilton's staff in Brussels is minimal, the task he has is impossible.
Mr. McDowell, SC, stated at a meeting of the sub-committee last week that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was under-resourced to deal with matters from Eurojust and Europol the Department. Eurojust and Europol are dealt with differently in the Oireachtas in that they come under a separate remit of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The short timeframe of eight weeks involved poses a difficulty for the sectoral committees in that they may be in breach of the subsidiarity principle. I refer to the time involved from when a document from the Commission is passed to a sectoral committee and, a report on it is completed and submitted, bearing in mind the lack of resources for other committees which, as Mr. Burton stated, have an overload of work.
Mr. Dukes is correct in what he said about the lack of preparation work before and after Council meetings. The current situation is a fait accompli. Ministers do not believe they should be accountable to committees before Council meetings and it would be difficult to get them to agree to brief committees after they have attended council meetings. There is a lack of such preparation work and account must be taken of the role to be played by the national Parliament in this respect and of the views of lobby groups. More contact with Ministers is required given what is involved in the scrutiny of legislation in terms of hearing the views of vested interests, preparing a report, having it debated in the Dáil Chamber and getting the agreement of the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson on it. Such a process is not a popular issue.
Mr. Bruton's point about the enforcement of corporate governance is an important one, having regard to the lack of corporate governance in the Enron case in the US, which marked the start of the lack of corporate governance throughout the world. It is a good step that an enforcement of corporate governance measure will be brought in. In terms of corporate governance, there is also a responsibility on professional people who are authorised to sign off on accounts.
Mr. Bruton referred to the integration of national parliaments to deal with issues facing the European Union. This is the first time legally we have an entitlement to be fully notified in that respect in terms of the integration of Dáil Éireann. Statutory instruments may be dealt with by one committee, a Green Paper may be dealt with by another and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny deals with the scrutiny of documentation once measures are in legislative form, but prior to that such documentation is dealt with by the Joint Committee on the European Affairs, which is a contradiction.
I welcome the suggestion of the appointment of rapporteurs to deal with legislation, especially controversial legislation. It is justifiable that people would be given the necessary resources to complete a rapporteur's report on controversial legislation. We need to be more selective. I have no doubt that with an effective lobby group in Brussels, items of controversial legislative could be identified. Once a legislative measure is passed by the Commission it takes up to two years before it is transposed. Therefore, there is a substantial lead-in time from the genesis of an idea until a measure is transposed into law.
The use of the IPEX website is a good point. I attend COSAC meetings at which I hear talk of IPEX website. One might wonder who would look up this site. It is important that it is a under friendly site as otherwise it would be of no use.
I attended one of the meetings of the Committee of the Regions in Europe, which represents local authorities. There is much talk in Dáil Éireann of a democratic deficit. There should be more integration in terms of the Committee of the Regions in Europe as it represents local authorities. We have a massive democratic deficit in local authorities and its members are the people who are most cynical of Europe and they hammer home that point every chance they get.
There is plenty of points for the witnesses to respond to in that contribution. We might have one or two supplementary questions later. I ask Mr. Dukes to respond first to be followed by Mr. Bruton.
I have a small contribution to make and I wonder if I could make it now?
We have set the parameters for the discussion. Ten minutes have been allocated for each party and a supplementary question can be asked after the witnesses have responded.
I thought that as the last man standing------
Sitting.
-----it might have been possible for me to make my contribution.
Mr. Alan Dukes
A wide range of matters have been covered and many concerns have been raised. There is a need to focus on where the Oireachtas should be lobbying. While I can understand there is a very keen interest in lobbying the Commission, which is the original proposer of the legislation, perhaps at this stage it might be wiser to get the domestic scene correct first in having an input into what the Government is doing in terms of participating in the European decision making process. In that context it is also important to remember that the European Parliament is now to all intents and purposes an equal partner with the European Union in regard to legislation. If the Oireachtas wishes to have a real influence on that portion of legislation that is decided for us by decisions in Europe, the Government and the European Parliament are the two places of choice to exercise influence, whatever the Oireachtas decides that influence will be.
There is a need to identify where the energy is to be applied. There have been attempts over a good many years to find a way of getting a better interaction with Members of the European Parliament and it is worth following that up because the European Parliament is as an equal partner in virtually all European legislation at this stage.
Perhaps it is impertinent for somebody outside the Oireachtas to say this but I will say it nevertheless - the Oireachtas should examine the experience of the evolution of the European Parliament. It has got to the point it is at today not necessarily because governments wanted it to be that way but because the European Parliament kept on pushing the limits of the powers it was given and it has arguably at various stages in the past exceeded and managed to extend the envelope of its powers. I remember during the Irish Presidency in 1984 having a fairly difficult exchange with the European Parliament about financial discipline and it was clear that the European Parliament was going further than its legal remit would allow and it got its way because it kept at it. There is a model there for any parliament to use and the Oireachtas should engage aggressively in mission creep of this kind because that is what it seems to me parliaments are for.
The issue of how European legislation is transposed into national legislation is an extremely important one for many reasons, not the least of which is that we do not always get it right. There have been cases where it has been demonstrated that the transposition of European legislation into Irish law has either been defective, late or did not do the job. It has been a hobby horse of mine for years, both as a Member of the Oireachtas and outside it, that it seems that the procedure we use for statutory instruments is a seriously defective one. I do not need to go into details here but I have always objected to the idea of using the form of statutory instrument which is laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and unless it is annulled by a vote of the two Houses within certain number of days it stands. It is up to the Government to order the business of the Houses and if it does not want to do that, it does not order the business and the measure will pass through automatically. There is another form of order which requires a confirmatory vote of the two Houses which is rarely used. I have had this argument with the public service both as a Member of the Dáil in Opposition and as a Minister. The answer that Ministers are given all the time is that it would be very inconvenient and time consuming to have to debate all these matters, but I have never accepted that argument. Most of this legislation is very simple. The majority of it does not require a great deal of scrutiny, although that does not mean it should not get such scrutiny and at least a formal nod from the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, there are important legislative measures in the economic and environmental spheres and on a range of issues which are dealt with by statutory instruments that are not debated. That is a general issue that must be addressed by the Houses. It has particular importance with regard to European affairs.
A number of specific issues have been mentioned and these are good examples. Mr. John Bruton mentioned the prospect of closer co-ordination of fiscal and economic policies in member states. The European Union is clearly moving in that direction, although far too slowly. However, we will see a great deal more of that. There is a very clear role for the Oireachtas in terms of reflecting on what is needed to improve economic management and co-ordination in the European Union. Now is the time to do that, before governments start making decisions on what form the legislation will take when it finally emerges from the European Union.
I will make a similar comment about work now taking place in the European Union and elsewhere on re-shaping regulatory structures for the banking and financial sectors. There is a great need for more effective regulation. I am not sure we will secure something that is adequate to the need, even at European level, but we certainly will not get it if it is not properly debated. At this very early stage in the process, the Oireachtas should consider that. An initiative currently being examined is the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013. A great deal of work must be done on that. There are other instances of important areas where we know policy decisions will have to be made in the future. There is not yet a given body of proposals emerging as the consensus ground, so there are areas where the Oireachtas can play a role.
In keeping with what I said earlier about the European Parliament, committees of the Oireachtas should not wait for the Government to get working on these. Committees of the Oireachtas have a right to take the initiative, to examine issues and to produce proposals on their own initiative. That is where co-ordination between this committee and related committees which are examining the strategic direction of policy, as well as line committees, would be very useful. There are tight timeframes for some issues. That is a problem of resources. The Oireachtas as a representative body should not wait only on the Government to take the initiative to bring issues forward. It should be more far-seeing. Even though this might cause some friction between some committees and Ministers, if the habit is formed members of the Executive and Members of the Oireachtas will find it useful.
I have been on both sides of arguments about the competencies and proper functions of committees and, based on that experience, I would always come down on the side of the value of an initiative from Oireachtas committees. It will never be something that does not produce some worthwhile wisdom for governments. In working out the type of process this committee is examining here, I would encourage committees to be more inclined to take the initiative. While Mr. Bruton was Taoiseach I was chairman for some time of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and I never had the slightest difficulty or any growls from him about anything the committee wished to undertake, even though we sometimes trod on people's corns. It is something that committees should take on as being a function of the Oireachtas. The committees and the Oireachtas should push the envelope in this regard, because if the initiative does not come from within the Oireachtas, it will not come from anywhere else.
Mr. John Bruton
I wish to make six points, if possible. First, one should not have too many illusions about the European Parliament. It is an institution that does not have the responsibility a national parliament has of sustaining a government in office. It can therefore pursue mission creep without any regard to the effect that has on the execution of policy. This is an institution which is very ambitious for itself but which is not necessarily elected on the basis of a genuine debate about European issues.
There are 27 national elections to the European Parliament. Many people are elected off lists to the national parliament, where they do not have the worry of consulting constituents which Members of this House have. They have more time, therefore, to pursue the increase in their powers. The Oireachtas and the other 26 national parliaments are in competition, to a certain extent, with the European Parliament and one should be realistic about that. I experienced that when I represented the Oireachtas in the convention. The European Parliament was just as ambitious for more power for itself as the Commission or the Council of Ministers, as an institution rather than necessarily in terms of what was in the overall interest of the Union.
Second, when I spoke about the Oireachtas and the Opposition being involved in the scrutiny of Government economic policies, in light of the need to manage the euro, I was not talking about it being involved on a day-to-day basis. When the annual report is being prepared by the Commission on the budget of the country for the following year or two, at that point, and only at that point, there should be consultation. One could not have the Oireachtas being consulted on every policy initiative taken on a daily basis. However, the underlying assumptions of the Government budget, which are being examined by the Commission, ought to be debated privately or publicly - there is a place for private consultation as well - with the parties in the Oireachtas so everybody in the Oireachtas knows where the country's finances are going. Consider the situation in Greece, for example, where the Greek Government came into office and said it was amazed to discover that the finances were far worse that it had been told. If there had been a system for consulting the opposition about finances, and if the Commission had been obliged to consult the Pasok Party in Greece two years ago, the new Greek Government would not have been in a position to say it did not know about the finances. It would have known.
David Cameron is probably saying the very same thing this morning.
Mr. John Bruton
Yes, but we must avoid that. There should be no surprises. These trends are well known but just not shared with everybody.
The third point relates to the complaint about reports not being debated on the floor of the House, which Deputy Perry referred to in his contribution earlier today and at other meetings, the reports of which I had the opportunity to read. I do not believe one can realistically expect every statutory instrument to be debated on the floor of the House. Who will decide which ones are debated and which are not? At present, the Government decides that. However, the Government has interests of its own which are not necessarily the interests of the entire Oireachtas, and the Government will probably decline to have some things debated but will want other things to be debated for its own purposes rather than the overall interest of the Oireachtas. My suggestion is that the Ceann Comhairle be given some additional power to decide, on appeal from a Member, that a particular item ought to be debated.
People complain about the Executive having too much power relative to the Oireachtas. The only way that can be solved is by giving more power to the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil to decide matters independently, in the way Speakers decide and must be consulted about the ordering of business. In our system it is exclusively the responsibility of the Government. That is the fundamental reform that has to be made.
If a Minister gives an inadequate answer to a parliamentary question, to avoid having to have tribunals every time that happens, there would be a strong case for saying that the Ceann Comhairle should have the discretion to ask the Minister to come back again. If a particular item is being discussed in a European Council and the committee in question feels that the Minister should explain what he or she is doing before attending the Council meeting, one cannot have them deciding that the Minister should come whenever they want because they would have the Minister there every day and would never get the job done. If there is a genuine dispute, perhaps there needs to be an appeal mechanism so that the Ceann Comhairle could say "I have looked at this and, exceptionally, I think this is so important that the Minister is being unreasonable in declining to attend the committee beforehand". It is a matter of political judgment and cannot be reduced to law. Political judgment needs to be given more scope. This is a very legalistic society with too many things being based on rules when in fact we need judgment. We need someone to exercise that judgment, so I suggest that the Ceann Comhairle might be the person to do that.
On the question of the opt-out mechanism, the opt-out from the justice and home affairs chapter was a colossal mistake on the part of Ireland. By opting out, one declines to have influence and one can only get into the picture after the lines of action have already been decided. I hope that at the earliest opportunity the opt-out will be reversed and that Ireland will take its full place in shaping the rule of law in Europe as a whole.
Why would Ministers want to come and consult a committee of the House before they attend Council of Ministers meetings? From my experience of attending meetings of the Council of Ministers - and Deputy O'Rourke and Mr. Dukes will probably have had the same experience - one is handed the brief as one gets on the aeroplane.
Yes.
Mr. John Bruton
An official may say: "Minister, we could not give it to you earlier because we wanted it to be absolutely up to date. We wanted to have the latest report from COREPER yesterday". However, the first opportunity the Minister will have to read any of the material is when the brief is presented on the aeroplane. If a Minister was called before a committee the week before, the Minister would have to get the brief from the Civil Service. The Minister would then find that he or she had more influence on what was going to be done by the country than is the case at present when the brief is given to them aboard the plane.
COREPER is all powerful.
Mr. John Bruton
Absolutely. There will be a commonality of interests between Ministers and the committee. That is also my point about harnessing competition in the House. One goes with the grain of politics if one wants to get things done. There is no point in trying to go against the grain as some academics try to do.
What might the committee system appoint rapporteurs for? If one looks at the strategic initiatives scheduled for 2010 - I have the list here before me - there are detailed proposals to be made on how we might get to a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. A rapporteur could be appointed on that subject. Why not appoint a rapporteur to examine how a regulatory framework for smart grids might be established, whereby people could generate electricity in their own homes and sell it to the ESB? We know that the Commission is going to come up with proposals on this, so why not have the Oireachtas come up with proposals first? There are proposals for the rights of seafarers and training them. A number of Deputies representing coastal communities would be very interested in having an input into such proposals emanating from the Commission. A proposed airports package is a topical matter, including policy and capacity. We hear much debate about whether there is enough, or too much, airport capacity, as well as the problem of aircraft noise. That is another example of something that could be taken up by a Member of the House, perhaps from north county Dublin, who lives near the airport. They might benefit from being appointed a rapporteur on such a subject.
Mr. Alan Dukes
One could have a nice conservation between Deputy O'Rourke and Michael O'Leary.
Mr. John Bruton
Yes, exactly.
We will leave that for another day.
Mr. John Bruton
We will leave that for another day. I have exceeded my time, but I want to say one more thing. I would not worry too much about the 12.5% corporation tax rate. I would not say too much about it either because it only attracts attention to it.
I know.
Mr. John Bruton
The truth of the matter is that the Commission is concerned with the total volume of taxation we are getting and whether it is sufficient to cover our expenses. Whether we raise it by a 12.5% corporation tax or by income tax, property tax or any other tax, the Commission is ultimately concerned with the volumes, not the means. We should not encourage the idea that this is in any danger because it should not be. There is no need to get involved with it. That is not to say that some jealous people in other countries, who did not think of doing this - as we did in 1956, when Gerard Sweetman introduced it - will not try to raise it. However, they have no standing in doing so because there is no basis for them to do so. It is irrelevant to the issue that they really ought to be concerned about, which is the overall fiscal position, not the particular rates or tax systems.
It strikes me that people a lot closer to home should probably be concerned about our tax base, but that is probably a discussion for a different committee. Deputy Michael Kitt has offered a supplementary question.
I want to welcome our guests. The point has been made about getting involved early at a drafting stage, rather than when directives are being finalised. The IFA is particularly good at doing that. Mr. John Bruton and Mr. Alan Dukes know a lot about the IFA. At the last meeting, Mr. Pat Cox was talking about the resources the IFA has. I do not have all the details, but the committee should examine that. In addition, Deputy Perry mentioned the question of debating, which is important whether in is the Seanad or in a committee. The Commission should encourage the provision of information on Europe in schools. There is not much involvement by the European Commission, or Europe generally, in encouraging research and innovation. There could perhaps be such an award at the Young Scientist competition. We have a Commissioner for research and innovation, so it is now more important than ever that we get involved.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting in Molesworth Street where Arthritis Ireland's representatives spoke about the money that is available for research. Early intervention is important in that regard because it has implications not only for people's health but also for employment and the quality of life. It was news to me that funding was available in Europe for the arthritis foundation. Mr. Jim Higgins, MEP, who chairs a committee in the European Parliament, was talking about that subject. That is the kind of information that we should be getting and providing.
There are a great many debates taking place in the Council of Europe. When he was a Deputy, Mr. John Bruton, was a rapporteur on many issues, including education for example. It is common to have rapporteurs on our committees now, but I first saw the system operating in the Council of Europe where they have great debates on human rights and minorities. We do not have much feedback on what happens there, however. Mr. John Bruton addressed the Council of Europe when he was Taoiseach, but we still do not have that sort of feedback. Some members of the Council of Europe produce newsletters, which are helpful, but we should be able to get more information on what is happening there.
The IFA has a lot of information on agriculture post-2013, although our committees do not discuss the subject much. We have discussed statutory instruments, but I agree that there has not been much debate on them. After 2013, we will have a lot of changes coming down the tracks. I hope we can decide on a committee or have a debate on that in the Dáil or Seanad. Farmers around the country are talking to me about this issue and asking what will happen. The more information we can get on this, the better.
I have one or two points of clarification. The work of the sub-committee is now beginning to take shape and certain trends and themes are emerging. One aspect that did not emerge during our discussions on scrutiny during the work of the Sub-Committee on Ireland's Future in the European Union was the red and yellow card system. This is at the heart of the provisions of the Lisbon treaty. The witnesses before the committee have expressed the view that the system is essentially a political tool rather than a legal construct likely to be used by parliaments. Subsidiarity checks at that late stage elevate the role, prominence and importance of national parliaments but will not be used. I would like to hear a concrete view from the witnesses on whether they agree with this final analysis, which is central to the work of this committee.
Both witnesses referred to the need for reality and Mr. Anthony Collins, S.C., made a similar point when he was before the committee. Much of this boils down to politics, which is about values and beliefs, and there will not be cross-party support for particular provisions in any national parliament. I am interested to hear how political parties and groupings on a pan-European basis can co-operate and work together to make the views of national politicians and national representatives heard on the wider European stage.
Regarding the enhanced role of European affairs, we are all tired of the discussion about the lack of knowledge, awareness and interest in European affairs at the domestic level. We are all acutely aware of it because of previous referendum campaigns. There is a fear and a risk that the task of scrutiny of EU legislative proposals remains the preserve of committees in the bunker in Leinster House. There is a risk that this work will not filter out to the wider public. What can we do at plenary level in the Oireachtas to raise the game and raise awareness and prominence of European affairs as part of the broader political discourse?
We have spoken about the appearance of Ministers before committees. Do the witnesses have a view on the mandate system versus the scrutiny reserve system or do they believe any of these systems can fit into our unique system in Ireland, where there is a dominant Executive and a weak Parliament? Are these systems possible or do we need a unique system in Ireland? Regarding this sub-committee, my concern is that we will publish a detailed report with many fine ideas but they may never see the light of day because the Government may choose to sit on them. Many of the good proposals of the Sub-Committee on the Future of Ireland in the European Union, of which I was a member, were completely ignored by the Minister. I raise this matter every time we have questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There has been no implementation. As former practitioners in the Houses, on the Opposition and Government side, can the witnesses say what this committee can do so that its recommendations are not ignored and are taken on board by the Government?
Mr. Alan Dukes
Regarding the red card, yellow card and subsidiarity checks, I agree with the view taken by Mr. John Bruton that it is a backstop. If an issue gets to that point, something has gone wrong in the preparation. That is not to undervalue what is an important provision. The objective of parliaments should be to avoid getting into that situation because it is an emergency measure. However, it is important it is provided for.
I cannot address the detail of all the points made but we must debate the wider question about the cohesion of pan-European political groups. Perhaps this is not the place to do so. Groups within the European Parliament are having some success in carving out identities but they will never be as cohesive as parties in national parliaments by the nature of the institution and the work they are doing.
The issue that interests me in the points raised by the Chairman is the question of what happens to the reports of committees. I saw this happen for a long time as a Member of this House. It is very unsatisfactory for committee members to put the work in and then find it impossible to get time for a debate on the floor of the House on the issues raised. There are only two answers to this, the first of which is for committees to be more assertive in what they do. It seems committees have the freedom to do that and be controversial. The second possible answer concerns constraints on time. If the Houses of the Oireachtas are serious about making an input into Ireland's participation in the European Union, there is an obvious way of improving the amount of resources and that is to sit an extra day a week and to sit more weeks of the year. This additional time should be used for the kind of debates that should happen in committees. Equally, if committee members are serious about it, they do not operate in a vacuum and most are members of political parties, including Government parties. They must put pressure on the Government to give more time on the floor of the Houses to debate committee reports. This has been lacking in the Oireachtas for as long as I have known it. It may be impertinent of me to say that for 21 years as a Member and eight years outside the House, I heard committee members make that complaint and some subsequently found themselves members of Cabinet. They did nothing about it when in Cabinet because the Executive here is very jealous of the headlock the Constitution gives it. The only way it will be sorted is if the Government makes a decision to do it differently. If I had a magic bullet that would make Governments do so, I would have used it long ago. Mr. Bruton would have done the same thing.
It is easy to point to the example of other parliaments where Ministers have a real interaction with parliaments before involving themselves in Council of Ministers meetings. They have different structures and different relationships between the executive and parliament, but a number of parliaments have learned how, and found ways, to do this. We always pointed to the Danish example, where they have a particular way of doing things, but that has been imitated, if not wholly then at least in part, in a number of other parliaments. Finland developed a rather similar system, to the best of my knowledge Estonia has developed something comparable to it, and there are other parliaments where there is more interaction between ministers and committees of parliament on European issues than we have here.
I have heard members of committees of these Houses making this point year after year, and the same persons, when they become Ministers eventually, as some of them do, being just as exercised about the idea of coming to committees as they were previously. If the political system really wants to do it, it must decide that is what it wants to do and impose it, as John Bruton stated, on the Civil Service and on the way Departments run their business.
In most cases there is no reason Ministers should not be briefed about issues coming up at Council of Ministers meetings some time in advance. Often it happens that the big important item on the agenda has been dealt with by COREPER only a couple of days beforehand and it is not always possible to have briefing far in advance, although if the issue is that important, Ministers should know a good deal about it before they are getting on the plane and are handed the brief.
However, that does not cover everything and in the nature of things, a great many important issues that are debated at EU level in the run up to making legislation come back to a Council of Ministers more than once. Often there is a first discussion and a kind of prise de position, then there is a report on how the discussion with Parliament is going and then there is a final decision on it. There are plenty of opportunities for input and discussion and it is not always the case that it would happen inconveniently for the Minister at the last moment. As with most of these matters, a big part of the answer is developing a habit of consultation so that process can eventually resolve many of these issues.
Mr. John Bruton
I would not go as far as the mandate system. That would make it very difficult for Ministers going to meetings to have the sort of room for manoeuvre that one needs to be able to negotiate with colleagues. It is not good for a country to become a problem country within the European Union. A country does not maximise its influence that way. Therefore, I would be more favourable to the scrutiny reserve system. However, it is important to get Ministers to come to committees before they go to meetings. Clearly, they should not come on the basis that they will be bound by anything they say, but they should come on the basis of getting, if you like, political advice from the committee.
I would not exclude some of those meetings taking place in camera. There may be an argument for that. The idea that everything must take place in public runs against the idea that one does not want to be advertising one’s bottom line to a member from the embassy of the country towards which one may be antagonistic in the negotiation that will take place at the Council. If it is an open meeting, that country’s staff must be free to come and listen to what the Minister is saying. It may be that in some cases, with political discretion and judgment, some of the meetings might have to take place in private.
Ministers could be persuaded that is in their interests for the reason that I gave, that they are in some measure in competition with their own civil servants as to who makes the important decisions, and many argue that in this country it is the civil servants who make more of the decisions and the politicians who make less of them. The obligation to consult with one's political rivals and colleagues is an opportunity for the Minister to take matters back to himself. I found that as well. Answering parliamentary questions is often something one welcomes because it gives one a chance to be brought up to speed on the brief and to say something in the Dáil which then becomes policy, whereas the issue might not have been brought to one's attention if it was not for the parliamentary question being posed. The same argument applies here.
Networking is very important in Brussels. It is important that Members should be going to Brussels frequently and that if travelling expenses are being discussed and it transpires that some Members of the House have been going to Brussels very often and this has been costing a certain amount, the media should not treat that negatively but should comment positively that it shows that Members of the House are doing their job in keeping Ireland's end up in Brussels by going there. One cannot do that sitting in one's constituency or sitting here in the Oireachtas; one must be out in Brussels getting the information. When Members' travelling expenses are next debated, I hope, whatever about trips to New Zealand, that nobody will criticise trips to Brussels or Strasbourg because they are essential.
I was privileged to serve on the Council of Europe with Deputy Michael Kitt. The Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly is about the most under-utilised democratic body in Europe. It is, potentially, a sort of second house for the whole of Europe. Russia and Turkey are members. It is a means of defusing some of the urgency of countries getting into the European Union because nothing else is regarded as important.
Unfortunately, the Council of Europe has suffered from the sort of institutional rivalry that is all to common in Europe. The European Union was jealous of the Council of Europe and was afraid to give more powers to the Council of Europe because it might be seen as taking away from the Union. The greater interests of Europe would suggest that more power should be given to the Council of Europe rather than less. It is important that members of the Parliamentary Assembly who are Members of this Houses should be given an opportunity to report back on what they are doing. Deputy Kitt's point is an important one.
The last point I would make refers to the question of how one gets committees to be listened to. Committees do not stand for re-election; Members stand for re-election. If a committee holds a press conference, nobody will come to listen or promote it particularly well. If an individual member, however, has been appointed rapporteur on something and he or she wants to get publicity, he or she will get the publicity because it is in his or her personal interest to get it. We need to harness the natural individualistic competition that is political life in Ireland for a good cause by using the rapporteur system and giving members something for which they personally can take credit.
On behalf of the committee, I thank both John Bruton and Alan Dukes for their patience and for taking the time to be with us this morning. It was a valuable session. It will greatly enhance our work and will feed in directly to the ultimate report of the committee to both the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. Hopefully, it will go much further than that. That is our ambition and target.
The joint committee went into private session at 11.10 a.m. and adjourned at 11.15 a.m. until 10.45 a.m. on Wednesday, 19 May 2010.