I welcome the representatives from the Committee of the Regions: Councillor Séamus Murray of Meath County Council; Councillor Constance Hanniffy of Offaly County Council; Councillor Paul O'Donoghue of Kerry County Council; Councillor Denis Landy of South Tipperary County Council; and Councillor Declan McDonnell of Galway City Council. The councillors are accompanied by Mr. Robert Collins and Mr. John Crowley of the secretariat. I call on Councillor Séamus Murray to begin.
Committee of the Regions: Discussion
Mr. Séamus Murray
I thank the Chairman for inviting the members of the Committee of the Regions to address the committee. I am accompanied by Councillors Connie Hanniffy, Paul O'Donoghue, Denis Landy and Declan McDonnell, along with Mr. John Crowley and Mr. Robert Collins of the office in Brussels. Our presentation will provide a background to the functions of the Committee of the Regions. Councillor Declan McDonnell will expand on the work of the Irish delegation, Councillor Constance Hanniffy will speak on subsidiarity, Councillor Denis Landy will speak of enhancing involvement at local authority level and Councillor Paul O'Donoghue will conclude by bringing together recommendations across the range of issues addressed.
The Committee of the Regions was established by the Maastricht treaty in 1994 to represent local and regional government in the EU decision-making process. As an advisory body, the committee provides the other EU institutions with the views and experiences of local and regional authorities. It is comprised of 344 members from the 27 EU member states and all are elected members of local and regional authorities. Under the treaty the European Commission is obliged to consult the Committee of the Regions in a range of policy fields, such as economic and social cohesion, environment, transport, energy, education, culture and youth and employment and training. The Commission may also consult the Committee of the Regions on other policy issues including agriculture and fisheries, enterprise policy, the Internal Market, consumer policy, the EU's external relations, immigration, constitutional affairs and so on.
The Committee of the Regions occasionally issues opinions on its own initiative, while the European Parliament and the Council may also consult the Committee of the Regions on particular issues. The committee generally makes its views known in the form of written opinions that are forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers for consideration in the decision-making stages. On average, around 70 opinions are adopted by the Committee of the Regions during five plenary sessions in Brussels each year. Much of the work of the Committee of the Regions reflects the work of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny as the same Commission proposals come before both.
One member of the Committee of the Regions acts as rapporteur in preparing each opinion. The wide range of opinions indicates both the range of competencies in the EU and the increasing demands on members of the Committee of the Regions. The Committee of the Regions makes its views on proposals known early in the EU decision-making process as its opinion must feed into the European Parliament and European Council's decision-making procedure in good time. The opinions of the committee are advisory and non-binding. However, being one of the first to respond to a Commission proposal gives the opportunity to highlight particular themes and influence the debate in other institutions as the CoR has access to practitioners at the operational level where much of the policy and legislation, for example, environmental policy in Ireland, is implemented.
Since its establishment in 1994, the Committee of the Regions has evolved and strengthened its position in various treaty revisions. It has been generally accepted that the committee has helped in some way to address the perceived democratic deficit. It is worth stressing that members of the committee are, first and foremost, members of their local and regional authority and, second, members of the committee. That said, the committee is only as effective as its members who are drawn from member states where power is strongly centralised to those with a federal structure where regions have extensive legislative and tax raising powers.
As well as issuing formal opinions as a consultative body, the Committee of the Regions also extends its influence as a political assembly and facilitator, establishing forums for debate, sharing experiences in key policy issues such as implementation of the Lisbon strategy, monitoring the application of the subsidiarity principle and exchanging information on best practice in implementing the Structural Funds and other EU funding programmes. In this way, in the past 15 years or so, the committee has broadened its representative role beyond the advisory function provided under the treaties.
I will now hand over to Councillor Declan McDonnell who will provide information on the workings of the committee.
Mr. Declan McDonnell
As members of the committee may know, Ireland has nine members and nine alternates on the committee, with all Irish regional authority areas represented. The delegation generally works in a unified and co-ordinated manner. While members are from different political parties and work within different groups, in a vast majority of cases we work as a unit in representing issues and policies of interest and strategic importance to Ireland. In carrying out our work we have the support of a delegation secretariat with an office in Dublin and one in Brussels. We also receive support from our local and regional authorities in regional assemblies. As members, we ought to draw heavily on our experience as local regional authority members. There are statutory links between the Irish CoR members and the regional authorities who are invited to comment on all CoR draft opinions to better enable Irish members to better reflect Irish regional interests.
The office in Brussels maintains contact with the Irish Permanent Representation, which is useful for getting a handle on what are the key Irish interests on a policy issue. We also receive occasional briefings from officials in the representation and are grateful for meetings we have had with ambassadors Bobby McDonagh and Geraldine Byrne-Nason. However, the process of getting the Irish position or an advance warning on key issues at an early stage could be further strengthened.
Within the political groups we also have direct links with our MEP colleagues in the European Parliament and have had more than one meeting with some of them. Since its inception, the Irish delegation has been very active and for its size has a high profile within the committee. To give the committee examples of our work, recently Mr. Séamus Murray was rapporteur for the CAP health check, while Councillor Hanniffy was rapporteur on the Small Business Act for Europe. Councillor Hanniffy is also chairperson of the Economic and Social Policy Commission, one of the six commissions within the CoR, and hosted a meeting of that commission in Athlone last September. Last year I was the committee's rapporteur on volunteering and social cohesion, while an alternate member, Councillor Mary Shields, was rapporteur on an opinion on adult learning. In recent times Irish members have also acted as rapporteurs on issues such as children's rights, European capitals of culture, road safety, language learning and linguistic diversity, corporate social responsibility, local employment strategies, the WEEE directive and so on.
As well as acting as rapporteurs on behalf of the CoR, Irish members also contribute to policy and political debates, amend draft opinions at the committee and during plenary stages and represent the committee at inter-institutional fora. Members also have representative roles and responsibilities within the political groups within the CoR. For example, Councillor Paul O'Donoghue is president of his political group and is active within the influential conference of presidents of the political groups.
The delegation has developed relations with the Irish representative on Clara, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and is an observer member of the national forum on Europe. Over the years the delegation has been active in representing the local and regional authority viewpoint at the forum and in various public consultation processes, such as the recent work of the Oireachtas subcommittee on Ireland's future in the Europe Union. In line with the objectives of the CoR generally, the delegation has tried to enhance its links with the European Commission office in Dublin with a view to addressing some of the Communicating Europe objectives and developing more decentralised means of communication and interaction on EU issues in all member states.
We believe it is important that Irish representatives in Europe, at all levels, bring a strong and coherent message to best represent Irish interests. This is even more important now given the current financial and economic crisis and any perceived loss of influence caused by the rejection of the Lisbon treaty referendum last year. I will hand over to Councillor Connie Hanniffy who will focus on the issue of monitoring the principle of subsidiarity.
Councillor Connie Hanniffy
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I will deal with the issue of monitoring the principle of subsidiarity. That is one area where the Committee of the Regions has constantly been very vocal in regard to better application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the EU decision making process. By "subsidiarity" I mean decision making at the lowest appropriate level and it is the guiding principle for defining the boundary between the responsibility of the member states and EU levels. The CoR is strongly of the view that the application of the principle must be considered not just from the European to the national level but also from the national to the regional and local levels.
Proportionality refers to actions being limited to what is necessary to achieving the objectives of the treaties. The CoR has made a number of requests on these issues since its formation in 1994. Some of those have been reflected in the Amsterdam and Nice treaties and now in the Lisbon treaty whose provision is much more explicit in terms of the local and regional dimension.
Members may be aware of the protocol annexed to the Lisbon treaty which states: "Before proposing legislative acts the Commission shall consult widely. Consultations shall, where appropriate, take into account the regional and local dimensions of the actions envisaged."
While I do not wish to pre-empt what may happen in the Lisbon treaty, the political dimension of the application of subsidiarity is a very important principle for us in the CoR. We in the CoR have always seen ourselves as the guardian of subsidiarity on behalf of European, local and regional government. To this end the CoR has established the subsidiarity monitoring network to facilitate the exchange of information between local and regional authorities of the EU as regards the various policy documents and legislative proposals of the Commission. Incidentally, chambers of the national parliaments, in France and Greece, are also members of that network. The CoR has been seeking to develop the network which acts by publishing subsidiarity analysis of the Commission's proposals based on the contributions from the network partners. These exercises could be classed as something similar to the tests in which the committee has participated under the auspices of COVEC. It has also been involved in establishing the subsidiarity assizes to broaden the involvement and discussions on the issue. Incidentally, the fourth conference on subsidiary takes place in Milan, Italy, on 8 May and Irish members of the committee, including the Chairman, will be able to participate. Alongside scrutiny, monitoring subsidiary is central to the work of this committee. This function is also relevant to the enhanced role for national parliaments set out in the Lisbon treaty, an important innovation which should have been given greater prominence during the last referendum campaign and which must be emphasised if and when the next referendum is held.
The Irish delegation is a member of the Committee of the Regions monitoring network and the issue of subsidiarity presents further possibilities for synergies between our committees in this regard. In this context, the current president of the Committee of the Regions, Luc Van den Brande, has already concluded several agreements with national parliaments on sharing experiences and co-operating on issues of monitoring subsidiarity. To date, he has entered into agreements with the UK, Greek and Italian Houses of Parliament. That option may be worthy of consideration by the Committee on European Scrutiny. However, fully developing the subsidiarity monitoring function will depend on ratification of the Lisbon treaty in all member states, which is another day's work.
I now ask my colleague, Mr. Denis Landy, to address the key issues in regard to better utilising and developing the role of local authorities in EU processes.
Mr. Denis Landy
While the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny has particular terms of reference, it also plays a pivotal role in strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the EU decision making process and this role will be enhanced under the provisions of the Lisbon treaty. In this context we, as members of the Committee of the Regions, want to underline the role local governments can play. It is estimated that up to 70% of EU legislation is implemented at local or regional level. One of the fundamental purposes of the Committee of the Regions is to give local governments an opportunity to comment on legislation proposed by the Commission which they may have to implement.
In Ireland, as in other member states, local and regional authorities represent an untapped potential in the context of EU policy. These authorities implement EU policy and legislation, as well as running a variety of projects and initiatives that are funded directly by EU programmes in sectors such as the environment, transport, research, youth, culture and citizenship. Many of these are undertaken in partnership with authorities in other member states. Local authorities are potential agents for better informing the public on new policies and programmes. They are well placed to communicate with local media and the EU funded products that many authorities implement are concrete examples which can be used to demonstrate the tangible benefits of EU membership.
However, given that local governments are stakeholders in the policy making process, they need to be better engaged and more widely consulted on policy areas in which they exercise responsibility. This aspect is most directly relevant to the work of the Committee on European Scrutiny. Several consultation processes are already in place, such as that between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the County and City Managers Association. However, it is important to note that consultation is not entered into at political level. Members of the Committee of the Regions receive occasional briefings from officials in the permanent representation of Ireland to the European Union and can hear directly from Commission officials when we attend meetings in Brussels. However, there is a deficit when it comes to members of local authorities being informed and consulted on EU policies which have a significant impact on the work for which local authorities are responsible. Ireland's position on a Commission proposal seems to be taken in the absence of any system of consultation with local government, which will often be required to implement the proposal. There is a sense that we are at the end of the line, in that we have no say over what is coming down the line yet is to be implemented by us.
Obviously, it can be argued that the division between executive and reserve functions within local government justifies the current system, which is a reflection of our centralised form of governance. However, the experience of members of the Committee of the Regions suggests that the system is failing elected representatives and local government. Some notable examples include the WEEE directive, which the committee discussed this morning, the water framework directive and the habitats directive. Local authorities have shouldered significant responsibility for policies of which they had little notice and over which they had no influence. In recent years, these three directives in particular caused problems up and down the country.
A more active engagement in the policy making process, enhanced consultation, raising awareness and better understanding of proposed EU legislation, can help effective implementation, better compliance, more appropriate transposition into the Statute Book — leading to less negative publicity associated with the Commission needing to take Ireland to court — and greater and better joined-up local decision making.
My colleague, Mr. Paul O'Donoghue, will highlight some of our recommendations on how to enhance the roles of local government and regional authorities, develop coherent messages and, where possible, develop synergies between different Irish representatives at EU level.
Will Mr. O'Donoghue address the most relevant of the recommendations? We have run through the recommendations in the excellent submission and the committee will formally revert to them. They are comprehensive, detailed and effective.
Mr. Paul O’Donoghue
To better involve local and regional authorities, the Oireachtas has a role at the pre-legislative stage in establishing a more structured mechanism for consultation with local government on Commission proposals with implications at local government level. The abolition of the dual mandate makes the case for such a mechanism even stronger. The provision in the Lisbon treaty regarding the enhanced role for national parliaments provides a further rationale for such structured dialogue.
Allied to this and as a minimum requirement, the system for transposing EU legislation into national law needs to be more inclusive. This is currently done with little or no consultation with local and regional authorities. While transposition must be timely, it must also better reflect the administrative consequences, including at local and regional level. The Oireachtas could examine the examples set in other member states where procedures are better developed and refined.
The 2001 White Paper on European governance recommended that each member state put in place adequate mechanisms for wide consultation when discussing EU decisions and implementing policy. Despite the National Forum on Europe, there has not been the desired engagement of other key stakeholders. This committee's terms of reference allow it to comment on Green Papers and other EU consultation exercises. Ireland needs to be more proactive in its responses and its attempts to shape EU policy. The permanent representation in Brussels and various Departments do a good job in defending the nation's interests. However, there must be more public discourse and opportunities for input into our position on key policy issues. For example, we could develop national strategies with national stakeholder consultations.
This committee and the Irish members of the Committee of the Regions have some responsibility for raising the awareness of stakeholders and the public about their work and role in the EU legislative process. In terms of improving public understanding of the EU, local authorities could be better used to demonstrate the tangible benefits of EU membership. Using concrete local examples of relevance to the ordinary citizen, such as the effects of legislation, successful EU-funded projects and the useful transfer of best practice, can be the best way of making the EU more relevant to people's everyday lives.
There is a potential for using local and regional authorities as channels for informing the public on EU issues with practical and local impacts. Local authorities also operate library services and run websites that are key information resources for large sections of the community and which can be better exploited at little additional cost. They also potentially appeal to some hard-to-reach sections of society.
At local authority level, there was an attempt some years ago, through the IPA, to establish a designated European Union officer within each local authority. While I understand this now operates on a more ad hoc level, we believe it is essential for each local authority to have a designated European officer who can, at minimum, serve as a point of contact for dealing with EU affairs, as well as a resource to improve understanding and debate on EU issues within councils. One of our colleagues on the Committee of the Regions, Councillor John Lahart, has tabled a motion before South Dublin County Council proposing that EU issues should be a standing item on council meeting agendas or that one council meeting per annum would be devoted exclusively to EU matters. This definitely would help over time to improve understanding and, in general, would raise the level of political debate on EU affairs at local and regional levels.
I now wish to make some further recommendations relating to the similar objectives of our respective committees regarding subsidiarity and the common workload we share in analysing and responding to EU proposals from an Irish perspective. We would welcome a "group Ireland" approach that would bring together Irish MEPs, Irish members of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, members of the Oireachtas European committees and other relevant stakeholders to discuss policy issues, share insights and develop common positions to enable Ireland to maximise its influence within the European Union institutional architecture.
One measure that could be adopted would be to make more widely available the briefings and analysis of EU legislative proposals prepared for this and other Oireachtas committees, at least to Irish members of the European institutions. Making such non-sensitive analysis available at an early stage would greatly assist Irish members of the Committee of the Regions in best presenting the Irish perspective. Irish members of the Committee of the Regions would welcome efforts by the Oireachtas to raise the profile of EU matters and to provide more regular slots for debate on EU affairs in plenary sessions of the Dáil and Seanad.
Members of the Committee of the Regions also welcome the proposed new role for national parliaments set out in the Lisbon treaty, which gives them a direct and immediate role in the EU legislative process. If this comes into effect, it will require the Oireachtas to develop a clear and proactive approach. It will also ask questions of the Oireachtas pertaining to its capacity to use this opportunity, how it will consult with various interests, including local government, and how it can respond within the timeframe provided.
I thank Councillor O'Donoghue and the other witnesses for this comprehensive overview and they are very welcome. I was delighted to get this opportunity because I was highly impressed when I attended a meeting at the conference of the delegation of the Committee of the Regions. As for the commentary and recommendations put forward by the witnesses, I believe that much can be achieved by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and local authorities in respect of the scrutiny role, the issue of subsidiarity and the democratic deficit. This has been a timely meeting and I am certain this marks the beginning of highly effective working co-operation with the Committee of the Regions in the future.
I welcome the delegation and complement the witnesses on their thought-provoking presentations covering individual aspects, which is of vital importance. This comes at an extremely important time for everyone when we are trying to face up to the fall-out from the Lisbon treaty referendum. This issue also arose in the past in respect of the Nice treaty and the single clear message to emerge is that the Irish people still have not come to terms with or have a firm grip on what Europe is about. For far too long, Europe has been perceived as the cash cow that would provide important funding for various infrastructural or community projects or whatever. Thereafter, however, people turned off and did not wish to know about the rest of the European agenda.
I served as Vice Chairman of a special sub-committee that was established under the auspices of the Joint Committee on European Affairs to try to come to terms with the position or outlook of the Irish people in the aftermath of the Lisbon treaty referendum. Arising from the hearings held by that sub-committee, it became clear that very substantial misunderstandings, a massive void and a lack of interest in engagement still obtained. Unless we follow the principle of subsidiarity in the regular sense and drill down to the local community and parish council and work from there in showing the involvement of the EU, we will get nowhere. It behoves us to work collectively, through the various groupings we represent to try to educate the public more in that regard. There is a role for the Department of Education and Science and our education system to improve understanding.
The points made by Councillor O'Donoghue are vitally important and I am sure all members were involved in proposing recommendations. All politicians must work collectively for a European agenda. Each group works in its own sphere, including the Committee of the Regions, the Dáil, the Seanad, the committees, the MEPs and the Government but there is no forum for a joined-up approach to bringing everything together. In any given week, I will not know what is going on in the Committee of the Regions and its members will not necessarily know what is taking place in the Joint Committee on European Affairs or this committee or what is happening with the MEPs unless they go out of their way. We are all orbiting at different levels and there should be some interconnection. I welcome the recommendations about condensing our roles and having a common agenda, which we share across the political divide. We must work in a more cohesive way, not just in the development of policy but in bringing the public with us. Collectively, we have failed to get that engagement and understanding of what Europe is about, other than being a cash cow. The work of the committee is welcome and it might be the catalyst to glue us together to improve the image of Europe and make Europe better understood by the people. Referendums have shown that the people do not always fully understand what they are asked to do.
Does Deputy Dooley suggest that a formal meeting with the Committee of the Regions is important?
It needs to be deeper than that, we need to do more than have the presentation heard by three or four members, have lunch together and be happy-clappy about it. We must set an agenda. My suggestion is to set up a working group from this committee, perhaps the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, those in the same position from the Joint Committee on European Affairs and two or three members from the Committee of the Regions. We should bring in the MEPs, the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs and the Opposition spokesperson on European affairs. We should agree to a forum every three months. We need a common platform or forum in which to operate.
Ms Connie Hanniffy
This approach is recommended by the Committee of the Regions, as explained by Councillor Paul O'Donoghue. There are appropriate ways for us to come together. One of the areas in which we have a combined role is when the Commission proposes its legislative work programme. It is important that we have input to that because some proposals have a greater effect on the Irish situation than others. There should be engagement so that we can consult, propose responses and home in on the issues of legislation that are of concern to us. The availability of documents and exchange of views is necessary. This committee can be the lead agency in how the process is put in place. The Committee of the Regions will be willing to play its part in the process.
From my experience of local authorities, there is interest in the subsidiarity principle, the debate in Dáil Éireann and the political deficit that exists. People find that the local councillors receive the explanations and analysis of directives before they are in law. The increased powers given to this Oireachtas joint committee since 2007 have led to a clearly defined role and a mandate to bring in representatives of NGOs, Secretaries General and even the Minister so we can clearly analyse a directive before it is transposed into Irish law.
I was very determined to have the witnesses invited today because all politics is local. The people implementing the law are at local authority level and this is subsidiarity at the lowest possible level. Much can be developed from that level with the secretariat with regard to directors coming in for in-depth analysis. We can certainly work with the committee and secretariat to ensure our in-depth analysis can be forwarded on and the line of contact between us will remain open.
I met Mr. Robert Collins in Brussels, so would there be co-operation between the Oireachtas liaison officer and the liaison officer in Brussels? Mr. John Hamilton has been very effective and was here several weeks ago. There was an in-depth analysis of what is coming forward. I suggest that the delegates' office link with Mr. Hamilton, and we have clearly expressed the view that we would like to facilitate the Brussels office as well. Mr. Hamilton is doing a very effective job on behalf of the Government in Brussels and there should be co-operation at that level with regard to the papers coming from there. That would be of considerable benefit.
I welcome the group of well-established and hard-working councillors who have taken time off to come here today. They may be disappointed by the lack of attendance today but eight members have been coming and going from the start of the meeting at 11.30 a.m. As they are practically full-time public representatives themselves, the witnesses would appreciate the demands of the Oireachtas. As a Member of the Seanad, this is a role I have with the other members of this committee.
The Senator is reminding the witnesses that he is a Senator.
We are members of joint committees.
I thank the Senator for the clarification.
Deputy Dooley is particularly good-humoured now that he is not in that role any more. It served him very well and he was glad to have it.
I ask the Senator to continue.
Aside from that, as members of committees we can give examples of committee work. This can exemplify the sort of work Senators do above and beyond what councillors may have seen on the "Late Late Show" last Friday night.
I was delighted to be on the West Regional Authority for five years so I know the role of members and the Committee of the Regions. I read one of the reports by Councillor Mary Shields regarding education, which was well circulated. Others have prepared reports as well but I happen to have received that report and thought it very impressive.
We should have closer liaison and in some ways, when those in the regions see proposed directives coming they should alert us to any issues people feel strongly about. An example is peat cutting. If that issue had gone through the delegates' committee or this committee, we would not be in the current position, which is causing much hardship in rural areas. Another directive which has literally slipped through the net is the banning of eel fisheries for 90 years, the longest ban ever proposed by any state or country on a voluntary basis. That is being fought against at the moment but we got to it very late in the day, as the directive had been agreed and sent to the Commission. We are trying to reverse the policy.
These are two examples of how we can work with experienced people on the ground that are in Brussels more than we are. The witnesses are there at least every two months or four weeks. We are not there at all on a regular basis. The witnesses would carry out great work on the ground in Brussels with the liaison officers.
I am delighted the delegates are here today and that we will build up a far closer relationship with them. We will get used to working with them, either formally or informally. They have an open door to this committee and the Joint Committee on European Affairs. We are all singing from the same hymn sheet and working on behalf of Ireland Inc. in Europe. The more people make their voices heard the better. I was extremely impressed by the five submissions made by our guests, who know what they are about and some of whom have been involved with the Committee of the Regions from the outset.
What we have done today has been an extremely good exercise. From this point on, they should be made aware of the work being done by the joint committee and members should know what the Committee of the Regions is doing. We must work together. In that context we should draw up a formal protocol in respect of the joint committee and the members of the Committee of the Regions.
We should also work with Mr. Hamilton, who is extremely effective in what he does, and with the Brussels secretariat and the Dublin office. The flow of information is critical because we must be provided with in-depth information regarding the directives emanating from the European Commission. If the Lisbon treaty is approved by the people in the next referendum the joint committee's informal role in respect of subsidiarity will be placed on a formal footing. We want to work with the local authorities and the Committee of the Regions so that we might enhance our role in the context of scrutinising that which comes before us.
Mr. Séamus Murray
I thank the Chairman for arranging today's gathering. It was on foot of a chance meeting in Paris with some members of the Committee of the Regions that he offered us the opportunity to make a presentation to the joint committee. I welcome Senator Leyden's and Deputy Dooley's comments with regard to further meetings and co-operation. It is important that we have made our submissions to the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, the members of which are prepared to listen to and co-operate with us. Perhaps it might be possible for the joint committee to issue a written response to the recommendations we have put forward.
I have given careful consideration to the submissions and the recommendations they contain and I give a commitment that a formal reply will be issued to our guests. That reply will outline the action the joint committee will be in a position to take.
I apologise for my late arrival. I was obliged to attend another meeting earlier. I welcome the members of the Committee of the Regions and I apologise for missing their presentation. However, my colleague in Galway, Declan McDonnell, has kept me apprised of the tremendous work done by our guests. Mr. McDonnell produced a number of papers which were the subject of some international acclaim and which were quoted in foreign media organs. Our guests do great work representing rural and regional communities throughout Ireland.
I was delighted to hear Senator Leyden suggest that there should be more co-operation between members, as elected representatives of the people at national level, and our guests from the Committee of the Regions. This is particularly important in the context of what is happening throughout the country. I single out one organisation, the national parks and wildlife service, NPWS, which has objected to one-off rural housing projects. Some 60% of Connemara is now a designated area. The NPWS is abusing its powers in certain circumstances. In that context, it is for ever quoting European legislation, rules, regulations and directives. It is important that Deputies and MEPs who represent rural constituencies should work with the Committee of the Regions to clip the wings of the NPWS. I have been approached by young people who were literally crying because, for ridiculous reasons, the NPWS objected to their applications for planning permission in respect of one-off housing developments in rural areas. This matter must be addressed.
I am involved with a case at present in which the NPWS is literally driving a person off his land. I do not wish to refer to the case in any great detail because I am awaiting a reply from——
I presume the case in question relates to the interpretation of a directive.
That is correct. The case to which I refer relates to a farmer who wants to cut turf on his bog but was informed by the NPWS that he could not do so and that if he proceeded to cut it, he would be imprisoned. He was told he could not cut turf and that he would be put in jail if he did. He has received no compensation from the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the past six to eight years. He has lost practically everything. This is an issue that must be addressed. I hope we can work with our colleagues who are councillors in rural areas and dealing with this issue every day.
Mr. O'Donoghue has stated precedents have been set in other jurisdictions. We are talking about subsidiarity, a level of knowledge and power emanating from top to bottom. That is very important.
The antics of this crowd had a lot to do with the rejection of the Lisbon treaty. In Galway and Connemara alone 90% of the people voted against the Lisbon treaty. The reason was that what was happening there had affected their livelihoods. This is an issue we must address.
The CoR should have a link with the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny with regard to transposing directives. Local authorities have a critical role and it is important to get their observations across at an early stage. That is our concern. Recognition of local authority members on the ground is critically important. Excluding local authorities from having an input into the process of transposing EU directives into Irish law never made sense. A link with local authorities is essential.
Mr. Séamus Murray
The Chairman has said we will receive a written response to the recommendations. We have decided that we will enhance communications between both groups. We have agreed to work together in regard to the subsidiarity monitoring process. There are two other areas where we might have some contact. These are a follow-up on the June summit when the guarantees are due to be considered and also making reports on EU legislation that are available to regional members available to the committee.
We can arrange for that to happen. We have a very effective secretariat. The recommendations are all achievable and can be delivered on.
Mr. Séamus Murray
Communication between the secretariats is very important because we have an excellent secretariat and an excellent regional office in Brussels.
A follow-up on the June summit is very much within the remit of the Joint Committee on European Affairs but we can notify the secretariat of that committee of what it is expected should be delivered. We will also forward the transcript of this meeting to the committee in order that it will be fully conscious of this committee's commitment and that we would like its involvement in supporting the CoR, as well in areas where it considers it would benefit the CoR.
Are there any further questions before we conclude?
Mr. Declan McDonnell
There is one issue upon which Deputy Grealish has touched, namely, the habitats directive which has destroyed the possibility of connecting Connemara with Galway city and the building of a bypass in Galway by allowing planning permission for half of it and leaving the other half aside because of a bog. People cannot touch bogs, yet we cannot divert the road because of fauna. That decision has created difficulties that everyone missed. It is important to have co-operation to prevent a departmental official objecting to a National Roads Authority decision, the Government objecting to the Government, if the committee understands what I am saying.
This is of critical importance and why people have been so cynical. Once we ratify the Lisbon treaty everybody will have a critical role of observation, of critical analysis. It will be up to us once a directive leaves the Commission — even before it is brought before the Government — to convey our opinions and concerns to the Government and to raise awareness as much as possible. The very significant reaction to the habitats directive is a case in point. The reaction is one of total dismay, as people cannot get a simple planning permission application through.
Mr. Denis Landy
Briefly, there was a wake up call for us in the Lisbon treaty in terms of the implementation of the concept of subsidiarity.
Yes.
Mr. Denis Landy
There will probably be a reluctance on the part of certain elements in the Oireachtas in regard to the concept of subsidiarity because it will mean a sea change in releasing funds to local authorities and the regions. If we are to sell Lisbon II, this has to be spelled out clearly. We need to get our act together at local level and between the Committee of the Regions and the committee on that issue. We are looking at the local-regional authority structure as being at the end of the process. Unless we are involved at the beginning of the process in terms of directives, etc. there will be continuing cynicism about the European Union and what is happening as a result of European directives.
On a positive note, we could do some work in selling the good news from the European Union, particularly about the money provided for roads infrastructure. We have failed to sell that message because we have not been at the table. There is a lot of hope as a result of today's meeting. I would like to think we will work together on these issues.
On that point, post-Lisbon II there will be increased powers for national parliaments which will have the right of observation and scrutiny. As proposed today, this committee will be linked with the Committee of the Regions. We can certainly follow through on that issue.
I have arrived at the 11th hour.
The Deputy will appreciate the role of the Committee of the Regions and may wish to comment on it.
My sincere apologies for not being present earlier. I see many people with whom I worked during the years in the council, the association of county councils and so on. Having read the delegation's submission it is clear we are working on the same lines. The Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and the Joint Committee on European Affairs are singing from the same hymn sheet and want to enhance the role of the elected representative in all matters related to the European Union. We have been trying for the past 12 months to expand this role for the committee, particularly in the context of subsidiarity and extra powers being given to the regions and at local level. That is the way to bring the European Union closer to the people. This can only be done if we all co-operate with the Commission from the beginning of the work programme. With the Committee of the Regions, we must be a player from the very beginning of the work programme when information is disseminated. We must work through to the transposition of legislation and be involved in responding to and meeting the real needs of the people through legislation, directives and so on. I hope we will have a fruitful relationship and maintain strong links with the Committee of the Regions in the coming months.
I thank the delegation for appearing before the committee. I invite its members to lunch in the restaurant.
The joint committee adjourned at 1.35 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 7 April 2009.