The second part of the meeting is to discuss with our MEPs the enhancement of communication between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. I welcome Mr. Proinsias De Rossa MEP, Mr. Liam Aylward MEP and Ms Mairead McGuinness MEP. Apologies have been received from Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher MEP, who could not stay for this meeting, Mr. Seán Kelly MEP, Mr. Jim Higgins MEP, Mr. Brian Crowley MEP, Ms Marian Harkin MEP and Mr. Paul Murphy MEP. Ms Nessa Childers MEP and Ms Phil Prendergast MEP may join us later. I invite Ms Mairead McGuinness MEP to address the meeting.
Communication between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament: Discussion with MEPs
Ms Mairead McGuinness MEP
I thank the committee for the invitation to address the meeting and to listen to the Tánaiste's comments on the work programme. The committee has invited us to speak on the topic of enhancing communication between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. In more recent times there has been better communication between these Houses and our House, so to speak. I note that MEPs have engaged more with Ministers in recent times than was the case in the past and this is to be welcomed. I am not sure if we have the answers because there are practical difficulties for MEPs to speak in the Dáil as there are for Members of the Dáil to speak in the European Parliament. However, some improvements could be made.
I will comment first on some of the important issues that have just been addressed. As it is the end of term I will speak directly about some of the points. There is general optimism about the report on the budget for the European Commission for the period 2014 onwards. I do not share that optimism. The report, as an opening paper, is certainly more positive than would have been anticipated but there are many issues which will be very difficult for the European Union to resolve. Among these issues is the issue of own resources and the size of the budget. This brings me to the general point of the current European Union position.
Since I joined the Parliament in 2004 I have seen a reduction in solidarity within the European Union and Ireland and Europe have suffered from the consequences of this reduction. There was talk of colourful garments being worn in the Dáil. I refer to the use of the phrase, the green jersey and we all understand that this means looking out for ourselves. However, the danger of us using this term is that we do not like it when the Germans and the French look out for themselves. When we use that term we must understand the consequences of what we are saying. This is also my advice to lobby groups. It is an extremely loose term which has serious implications for the European Union. As a small member state and by means of the diplomatic initiative, Ireland is now re-engaging very positively with Europe. This initiative is having a positive effect. I have spoken to some ambassadors who have commented that what we are doing is to be commended and is important. Small member states have a key role in building and rebuilding European solidarity.
I will broaden my comments from the budget to a discussion on agriculture as has been mentioned by some colleagues. We have specific concerns on agriculture and the budget. There is no point in talking to those of like mind with us because they are easy to talk to. We need to talk to those who do not share our views so that they understand the issue of food security and the concerns in this country and that we include their concerns with ours. That point needs to be made emphatically.
I have seen some of the details regarding CAP reform and I think more details will be leaked next week. The Commission will finalise its position on 12 October. There will be an entirely new system from 2014 onwards and there will be a number of different payments which I can discuss later if the members wish. It has been regrettable there has not been sufficient debate in Ireland on this issue. We want to retain what we receive from the European Union budget but we want agriculture and food to play a significant part in our economic recovery and this has been the message we have been giving. The biggest problem for Ireland is the redistribution of payments within Ireland. This will be a politically very difficult issue for us all but we might as well deal with it now to see how we can negotiate for flexibility and a more pragmatic approach when reforms of the CAP are being finalised under, possibly, the chairmanship of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Simon Coveney. I am happy to answer questions in more detail.
Mr. Liam Aylward MEP
I congratulate the Chairman on his appointment and I wish him well. I also congratulate the members who have been elected to this committee. As MEPs we look forward to working with this committee because it is directly involved with the everyday work of the MEPs and it has a significant role in this regard. It is probably the best channel for communication between MEPs and the Oireachtas. I am a member of a European Parliament committee on agriculture and rural development and also a committee dealing with culture, education and sport. The Lisbon treaty has greatly changed the face and the work of the European Parliament and how it interacts with member states.
I understand this committee's report has made several recommendations as to how to bridge the disconnection between the European Parliament and member states. There is a great deal of miscommunication among citizens on the role of the European institutions and the MEPs. It is my experience, and I am sure it is the same with my colleagues, that most of the queries I receive are about national issues. When I was a Member of the Dáil most of the queries I received from my constituents on a day to day basis were about council and local matters. There is a reason for that. The problem originates at national level in that people do not understand what the European Parliament is about. They come to us to sort out matters believing that the European Parliament can dictate to the national Parliament in terms of amending legislation or correcting problems. That is quite common and in a sense it is a contradiction because when one knocks on doors while canvassing everybody immediately defends the competency of the member state that should not be interfered with but when they contact us it is to do just that. That is something the committee could address. People are then disappointed if they find they cannot fix the problem or change the item of legislation to which they refer.
The current image of the European Union is very much related to economic issues in that it is felt it is all powerful and that it controls every policy. That said, I hope what happens in Europe today will be significant for the future but overall I believe the joint committee can play a role in communicating the roles and competence of the different institutions and national parliaments to the citizens and act as a bridge between the citizens, the national Parliament and the European Parliament.
MEPs serve on various committees. Ms McGuinness and I are on the agriculture committee. I also serve on the culture, education and sport committee. In view of the workings of those committees I see an important role for this joint committee. Other members are members of different committees. Mr. De Rossa is a member of the industrial committee; it varies across the board. Under the Lisbon treaty, because of the greater responsibility in the area of co-decision making, the responsibilities have greatly increased. I was a member during the previous term. Mr. De Rossa has been a member for much longer but one can see the difference immediately in this mandate as distinct from the last one.
I will not refer specifically to the agriculture committee and the Common Agriculture Policy. Ms McGuinness has referred to it already. As two members of that committee, with Mr. Jim Nicholson in the North of Ireland who has an approach to the issues in common with us, we work closely together and have been working extremely hard. Two reports have been presented by the different groups in the Parliament and a third is about to be presented. In terms of the Commission document that has been leaked, we hear that the document to which Ms McGuinness referred is about to be leaked in the next week. That is the way we get out information.
The important point is that we must educate people in Ireland as to what is happening. If members want to talk about historical payments, Ms McGuinness and I had a session with the Irish Farmers' Association again this week and we tried to bring home the facts about that issue to its members but we are only two voices on that committee, with some limited support.
I am also a member of the sport, culture and education committee. That is one to which we may not have paid much attention because under the Lisbon treaty sport has become a European competence. I have a particular interest in sport but the increased policy priority is not being matched with financial resources and no budgetary provisions have been made for the sports policy. That is a great disappointment to all the people I contact here who are working in the sporting organisations because immediately they think in terms of the national lottery and money being provided to build club houses and provide playing pitches. That is not the way it works. They intend to address the key issues and objectives set out in the White Paper on sport. It is not about funding individual teams or venues but enhancing sport in terms of social inclusion, tackling racism and violence in sport, and encouraging a healthy lifestyle. There is a different brief in that regard. We are preparing a report on sport. I am the shadow rapporteur and I would welcome any submissions from this committee because it is a new area and it is important that we have the committee's input into that.
Time is limited but I want to refer to the Mercosur deal which I believe is of great interest to members. It might have been put on the back burner due to the Argentinian elections. I am a member of the Mercosur delegation and the EuroLat delegation. It may not have been a burning issue for some time but most of the European member states outside of Ireland, France and the Agriculture Commissioner are in favour of the Mercosur bilateral, particularly Spain and Portugal, which have very close connections. The President of the Commission is very much in support of it, as is Commissioner De Kucht, although it is currently on the back burner. We have been fighting in a united fashion on the agriculture committee against that proposal but members should be aware of the position on it. It will come back on the agenda some time next year.
I could give the committee much more detail but I will leave that for the question and answer session. It is important that the committee would feed information to us, and communicate with the other committees as well, and that the European affairs committee will be the focal point in terms of bringing the views of the various committees to us. There is work to be done at home also.
The model I find extremely good is the permanent representatives with whom I deal on a constant basis, particularly on agriculture. They feed information back to us and, to be honest, we vote in the national interest. We have difficulties within our groups. I am a member of ALDE group, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. There is not a great deal of support for the Common Agriculture Policy as we know it in that group. Nonetheless, we have to make our case in that group. The same applies to all the other groups, as my colleagues will tell the committee. We find that the line we get from the permanent representatives is important. I thank the members for the invitation and we look forward to working with them.
Thank you, Mr. Aylward.
Mr. Proinsias De Rossa MEP
I am a member of the employment committee and I am also chair of the European Parliament's delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council, PLC. I do not intend to go into the detail of those except to make two points. In terms of the employment committee and given that employment is central to the recovery in Europe, as it is in Ireland, and that a recent report by the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, made it clear that Ireland's future and best interests lie in the achievement of Europe's objectives, it is essential that there is an adequate budget to achieve those objectives. We are talking about something like little more than 1% of Europe's GDP at the moment as a European budget. The United States, which is a federal structure with huge military expenditure, spends approximately 35% of US GDP as a federal budget.
The difference between what we expect of Europe and what we provide Europe with to achieve its objectives must be seriously examined. If we want Europe to work and succeed, we have to pay for it. There is no other way to do it. Looking to achieve objectives regarding employment, research and development, the Common Agriculture Policy and the social objectives of Europe while at the same time arguing for a reduced budget is counterproductive. That point must be strongly taken on board by the Dáil and by the Irish Government.
On the other area of direct responsibility that I have, as chair of the PLC delegation, it will be seen by all political groups in Palestine - Fatah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - and all of the different political groups, as a slap in the face to Palestinians if Ireland does not support its approach to the United Nations in September. I appeal to the Dáil and the Government to think seriously about the impact of that. It is not just a question of the dignity to which Palestinians are entitled but where they go if they are rejected by the United Nations. As Israel has rejected negotiations, what other avenues are open to the Palestinians? We all agree, as do the Palestinians including Hamas as members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, that the way forward is through negotiations. What options are left if negotiations are blocked even in the United Nations? These are the questions we as a State that established its own independence without asking anyone and went through a peace process must ask. Arguments that this is a unilateral declaration by Palestine are utter and complete nonsense. Ireland did not ask for permission to establish its independence. Likewise, Israel did not ask the Palestinians for permission to establish the Israeli State.
The primary task of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament in their respective spheres is to take part in legislative decision-making and scrutinise the political choices by the Executives at national and European level. At times there may be tensions between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament over the limits of their respective tasks. Generally, however, we serve our citizens best by seeking to co-operate on those tasks. Bearing in mind that while national parliaments are concerned about subsidiarity, so too are European parliamentarians. It is raised in every debate as to whether we are encroaching on subsidiarity and proportionality. The European Parliament is an ally in maintaining these principles.
The Lisbon treaty strengthens the role of the Oireachtas in the EU through giving the right to take part in decisions such as European conventions and reviews of Europol and Eurojust. The treaty also enhances the role of national parliaments in the provision of information from the EU on freedom and security issues, internal security, proposals to amend the EU treaties, future enlargements and other areas. The Oireachtas is given the right to object to proposed legislation under the yellow and orange card procedures.
I have never encountered an MEP who does not welcome the increasing role played by national parliaments in EU affairs as provided for in the Lisbon treaty. An enhanced role for national parliaments will contribute to better law-making and improved coherence while increasing national ownership of EU laws. While communication between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament has improved, there is scope on both sides to further improve it. Steps the European Parliament could take to achieve this include assisting the Oireachtas in its scrutiny of draft EU legislation. It must always be borne in mind that the European Union is a three-legged stool – the Commission, Parliament and Council, each with its respective political perspective based on the political groupings at national level. They all must reach a broad consensus with each other.
The European Parliament can provide an alternative perspective on the impact of EU proposals to that emanating from Council discussions. It is inevitable that there will be a difference between the Council's position and that of the European Parliament, just as there is between the Dáil and the Government. Taking account of the Parliament's view is just as important as taking account of the Council's and the Commission's. It gives a balancing view, particularly as it comes from those directly elected. There are also specialist analyses of EU proposals carried out by European Parliament bodies such as its policy department and its scientific and technological assessment unit, all of which could be drawn on by the Oireachtas when examining Commission proposals or Council opinions.
Keeping abreast of the Parliament planning schedules could also assist the Oireachtas in identifying key priorities and timetables for its own scrutiny. The European Parliament could assist in identifying relevant stakeholders, particularly those at EU level, to appear before the Joint Committee on European Affairs and other Oireachtas committees when discussing EU matters which could include MEP rapporteurs.
There are several steps the joint committee could consider to improve communication. Given that the working week of both the Oireachtas and the European Parliament are similar, the committee could arrange to hold some of its meetings when MEPs are most likely to be in Ireland, for example on Thursdays or Fridays, or during the regular constituency weeks, that is periods which MEPs can spend in their home country or engage in external activity such as visits to the Middle East in my case. This approach would best be done on a pre-scheduled basis in consultation with MEPs and other Oireachtas committees could be encouraged to do the same.
The European Parliament has previously suggested that MEPs be given the right to take part in European debates in national parliaments' committees and in occasional plenary debates. For example, the recent Europe Day experiment in the Dáil could be developed. The committee could also consider ensuring Irish MEPs, as well as other MEPs, address a particular issue as well as taking part in discussions on whether a directive should be transposed into domestic law through a statutory instrument or through primary legislation.
The enhanced role of national parliaments under the Lisbon treaty enables them to be more actively involved at an early stage in the process of policy and legislative formulation at EU level, thereby closing at least a perceived democratic deficit. This should contribute to stronger democratic control and bring the EU closer to the citizen.
I look forward to working closely with the new Joint Committee on European Affairs on these and other issues.
Ms Phil Prendergast MEP
I apologise for being late for the meeting. My plane was delayed by an hour and a half, so I nearly had to fly it myself.
Joining the European Parliament in mid term as a substitute to Deputy Alan Kelly has had its disadvantages as well as advantages.
I took on his committees, the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee which deals with consumer affairs. On the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, the main issue of concern is the overall CAP budget and Ireland's allocation of €1.7 billion. Ideally, we want to preserve an indexed link in this amount to protect the single farm payment and rural development schemes. It is likely that the new cross-compliance conditions will be attached to the SFP or payments will be separately applied for. It is essential that there be some offset because of the effect on agricultural competitiveness and, therefore, on farming incomes. A transition period to new arrangements is required. Striking a balance between the greening of the CAP and the protection of existing farm payments is the key. Greening takes money away from traditional farm payments, but it should have positive outcomes for rural economies and farmers by further supporting diversification. I should not go on much more on that; I have given the general gist.
The Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee is an interesting committee. It deals with all matters relating to the consumer. There are various issues at present such as: consumer contracts; digital rights; energy and sustainability; group actions, which is where consumers faced with difficulties go to court to get compensation; financial services; food; and health. Health, which is a diverse and big issue is of significant interest to me because I worked for so many years in the health service.
In the course of this week, I took the opportunity to meet the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Michelle O'Neill MLA and the consumer affairs Europe group. We discussed the issues and how we might progress items that are upcoming on the agenda. It is an interesting, diverse and wide brief. It is a considerable learning curve as well. I look forward to continuing to co-operate with the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. I will not repeat what Mr. Proinsias De Rossa MEP stated already, but it has been gratifying to see our Ministers and officials coming out to the European Union and meeting the MEPs. From my previous history being here as a Senator, I know there was an element of disconnection between what we were doing here and what was going on in Europe. The financial difficulties we all experience have married the idea that we need far closer co-operation in what we are doing and real discussion about the difficulties that Ireland and every other country in the European Union are experiencing. I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to contribute here. It has been quite brief but I know from experience that people like brevity, particularly when they are hungry.
People like brevity. I thank Ms Prendergast MEP for her presentation.
The purpose of our meeting today was that this new committee was anxious to establish within its work programme its major role of communicating with the European institutions and the citizens. Many members of the committee are new Members and there is need for a degree of familiarisation. On 19 and 20 September, we will go to Brussels where, I hope, we will meet some of our MEPs.
Mr. Liam Alyward MEP
Will we be notified of that visit?
The MEPs will be notified of that.
We are anxious to have this committee open to the Irish MEPs at all times so that any time they are in town they would feel free to attend. That is open to all MEPs on the island, including cross-Border MEPs. For that reason, we are anxious to hold the committee meetings on Thursdays. We do not yet hold meetings on Fridays but there may well be some such meetings. That is being discussed and we are not sure how that will pan out. We have agreed that our meetings will take place on Thursdays, roughly at this time. It is a changeable feast. They will normally start at 11.30 a.m. or 12 o'clock. Everybody would be welcome.
We have in place a new system, by which much of the scrutiny work will be handed over to the sectoral committees. That means that each sectoral committee will have direct responsibility for scrutinising matters of important European concern in its particular area. We are anxious that those sectoral committees would communicate with the MEPs as well and, as Ms Prendergast MEP stated, we are anxious to develop that connection with Europe again in a much more cohesive fashion than perhaps was the case in the past.
We hope this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship. We have so much to gain from the MEPs. They are parliamentarians in Europe and we are parliamentarians in Ireland. We are very conscious that the MEPs are out there wearing the Irish shirt and it is extremely important that we link up with them. Unless there are any particular questions from the members, we will not delay on this occasion.
I congratulate our MEPs. They have clearly illustrated their thorough knowledge of the issues with which they are faced, the implications of decisions taken at European level for this jurisdiction and the need to speak with a European voice.
The European voice is becoming hugely important, for instance, in the food industry. The theory is that we in Ireland speak for the food industry. Europe has a food industry and has a significant population. Europe has a considerable demand for food. More importantly, Europe has the ability to provide food for a much bigger population than the population of Europe. As we now know, it is a vital interest as far as this country is concerned.
Another matter has been touched on by a number of speakers. Despite CAP reform and the retention of the best supports we can, at the end of the day often another agreement, such as the WTO or Mercorsur, supersedes that, sets it all at nought and defeats the purpose of the exercise. That is what worries me. As time moves on, we may eventually find ourselves painted into a corner, each doing our own job in our own way. The members of the European Parliament may do their job well, both at national and European level, but then find it set aside by somebody else doing his or her job with a vested interest in the outcome. It is a matter of growing importance. That is why I have stated repeatedly that we, as members of the national parliament, need to engage with our colleagues in other national parliaments with a view to ascertaining their thinking.
Over the past six months, for example, we, as a people as opposed to as parliamentarians and representatives, were amazed at the apparent lack of knowledge gained from what we heard from officials at European level who seemed to know the answer to all the problems with which Europe was faced. It was quite clear that everybody had a vision as to the solution to what was seen as the Irish problem, as we heard already today. It was not an Irish problem; it was a problem. Everybody has a contribution to make to that. We have much work still to do in that regard.
Why do we still see issues coming down the track, as we did in the past week, and ask ourselves how they got through, from where did they come, how the directive got by us and why did we not see it? We discover that we did not see it in the form in which it was then presented. That is an alarming matter. We must be much more alert. As the Chairman will be aware, we have had this discussion on many occasions in the past. I am concerned about the degree to which the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs has access or sight of some of the proposals before they become law.
I also welcome the MEPs. Unfortunately, none of the North-West MEPs are here but I am sure they have their own reasons. I am aware Mr. Pat "The Cope" Gallagher had to leave.
I have a particular interest in agricultural affairs. I appreciate this is not an agriculture committee, but Mr. Alyward MEP and Ms McGuinness MEP are members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. I am not sure whether Ms Prendergast MEP is.
Ms Phil Prendergast MEP
I am.
In the area I represent, Galway West, and particularly in Connemara, the fisheries sector has always had an anti-EU view because for a variety of reasons it feels it was sold out at the time. Much of the farming community is becoming concerned about a particular issue, namely, designations. There may not be as many designations in Leinster as there are in the north west, although there may be slightly more in Munster, but they are having a significant impact. If one excludes afforested land, as much as 70% of the landmass in my area of Connemara is designated in some way under European law, for example, special protection areas, SPAs, and special areas of conservation, SACs, in respect of birds, or Irish law, for example, natural heritage areas. In light of this imposition on people's land, they are beginning to ask what is in it for them. Heretofore, the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, played a valuable role and provided adequate compensation, but it has been reduced for financial reasons. This is more of an Irish consideration than a European one, but the SACs and SPAs fall under European legislation. This begs the question of whether there should be a scheme under the reform of CAP or the entitlements section to ensure adequate compensation as part of the redistribution of the package in respect of designated lands. I am not referring to Connemara alone, but also to counties Mayo, Donegal, Clare and Kerry and various other smaller areas.
The designations are having an impact on turf-cutting. They are only a matter for raised bogs currently, but I will not be able to return home to Connemara if they extended to blanket bogs. It is a major concern for people.
Valid planning applications submitted to local authorities that are in compliance with European regulations on appropriate assessments, etc. cost people up to €10,000.
I agree with Deputy Durkan about some initiatives. For example, the postal communication Bill was due to a European directive and there are issues concerning land reclamation following a European Court of Justice ruling or another directive. We are putting the blame on Europe's directives. At our meetings, we are being asked whether the Government or Europe is running the show. While there were always concerns about the role of Europe, it is increasing in certain areas due to the designations. I implore the MEPs to be conscious of this. I am sure my colleagues from the north west - Mr. Higgins, Ms Harkin and Mr. Gallagher - are, but I am unsure as to whether any of them is on the European agriculture committee.
Mr. Liam Aylward, MEP
Mr. Gallagher is on the fisheries committee and Ms Harkin is a substitute.
While I realise that this issue might not be as important in Leinster and Munster, I implore the MEPs to accept and understand its importance to my area.
I share my fondness for brevity with Ms Prendergast, in particular when my stomach is starting to rumble at this time of the day. I welcome the MEPs. I am glad they attended to provide an outline of their work in Europe. I look forward to meeting them there when we visit in September and I hope they take the Chairman up on his invitation to make a return visit to inform us of what is occurring and what they are doing.
Ms McGuinness mentioned the agriculture budget, which will have an impact on many members' constituents, given that many of us come from predominantly rural backgrounds and areas. She stated that she and Mr. Aylward were just two voices on a committee. How many people comprise those committees? I appreciate that our two MEPs have a difficult task in bringing people around to our way of thinking, but who shares our view and is there a large opposition?
I welcome Mr. De Rossa's suggestion that our scheduling should work in tandem so that the work we are doing reflects the work under way in the EU. It would be helpful if we had details of the EU's work circulated to us. That is all I have to say, as I am feeling the effects of famishment.
I invite Mr. De Rossa to reply briefly, as another group will attend our meeting immediately afterwards.
Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP
Regarding the issue of European legislation on bogs, SACs, etc., before we seek changes in European legislation, we should examine Irish legislation to determine whether we have transposed it in such a way as to use to the greatest degree the flexibility that exists in all European legislation. This legislative review should be our first step. In my experience of working on legislation in all spheres, there are always areas of flexibility in terms of lead-in times or so on. Perhaps this question should be put to the Houses.
The idea behind Europe-wide regulation is to prevent a race to the bottom. For example, we should not encourage industrial development that destroys our environmental advantages just to compete with somewhere else in Europe that has more stringent environmental regulations. Our environment is key to our tourism industry. People visit the Burren, Connemara and so on. Admittedly, they do not necessarily visit to see other people cutting turf, but they want to enjoy what is there. We must get the balance right.
It has to do with the other countries' stance.
Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, MEP
Let us be realistic. How many people share our point of view on CAP, for example? What is our point of view on any issue? Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Labour, Sinn Féin and so on each has a point of view. Getting the economic affairs committee, the CAP committee or whatever to adopt our point of view is not easy. As Ms McGuinness stated, the green jersey is not necessarily the most beneficial one to wear in a European Parliament committee. One is asking others to show solidarity with us on the one hand and, on the other, telling them that we will not show solidarity with them. We need to get the balance right.
Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP
I am on the environment committee from which many of the issues raised by Deputy Kyne originated. One reason for our problems with the regulations is that they were made 15 or so years ago. Some of us were MEPs but many were not. There is a large gap between directives being agreed by the European Parliament, Council and Commission and being transposed by member states. That there is sometimes a gap in legislative memory is a problem. There is a way to implement all measures without affecting people who, for example, hand cut turf in County Kildare, a group I am trying to assist. We have the same problem. Legislators are not involved in transposition, which is done at official level. Often, it is too late for us to intervene. It might be useful to examine the process involved in a directive.
Explaining to people why we have these directives is an issue. For example, every farming organisation rejected the nitrates directive because it is in the nature of organisations to say, "No". Much of the nitrates directive was positive for agriculture because we reduced costs and the use of certain inputs. We had to do it because we agreed to it. That is the final point. A directive is not imposed on us. Legislators, the Commission, the Council and the member states agree it and we are duty-bound to implement it but it can be done in a flexible way.
On the issue of the two voices, we share a committee but Mr. Liam Aylward and I do not sit down before meetings and work out an agenda. It is not how I operate because one must have a European perspective. While I like Mr. Liam Aylward very much, I also like the chairman of the committee, who is Italian, Mr. Albert Dess, who is German, and all the other people. They see the Irish perspective because I spend time making sure they understand it. We need to do much more of that. We also need to understand their problems and give them the possibility of a solution rather than constantly looking for somebody to understand us because that will not work in our interests.
On the budget issue, Ireland is still a net beneficiary member state. There is a problem with those who pay saying they want money back. It is easy for those who are net beneficiaries to say others should pay more. The detail of negotiating and how we persuade them that it might be in the interests of the European Union that we have a higher budget, about which my colleague, Proinsias De Rossa, talked, takes good argument and persuasion. It is possible to do that and this committee should have a role in doing that. We certainly have a part to play in it.
When it comes to a stage when Ireland becomes a net contributor - we thought it would happen sooner than perhaps it might - I hope we are as open about the size of the budget as we would like other member states to be currently. That is the real test of our solidarity within the European Union and it might be tested.
I agree fully with what Mr. Proinsias De Rossa and Ms Mairead McGuinness said in that respect. It cannot be a blame Europe game in the future. That is the reason we are restructuring this committee. Sectoral committees will be involved in scrutiny. There is no longer an EU scrutiny committee. Sectoral committees which are closer to the real issues, such as the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and CAP or whatever, will be responsible for dealing with the issues directly. That should mean scrutiny will be much more appropriate and matters should not be able to get through. Directives do not fall out of the sky. We have the opportunity to scrutinise them in the same way as others do.
This committee and the Government will look at the whole process of transposing the legislative Acts into domestic legislation. Because of the statutory instruments in the past, in many cases, it was done at the whim of a Minister. We now have a mechanism in place which will look carefully at those legislative proposals and at whether it is appropriate that there should be a statutory instrument or primary legislation.
This is all part of the process of engaging with MEPs. We must ensure we have the structures and communication in place so any of the mistakes we might have thought about in the past do not occur and that we start with a fresh broom.
I agree fully with what the Chairman said. The only thing I would say is - we had this discussion before in regard to the sectoral committees - that there were times in the past when Ministers refused to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs and opted for the sectoral committee, and this is not a reflection on Ministers or Parliament. I do not know for what purpose but I have a view on the subject. That is an issue we need to discuss specifically because issues which affect us come down the track on a regular basis. I have been a member of this committee for a long time and I can assure the Chairman that Ministers never appeared before the committee.
The programme for Government specifically requires them to appear before this committee or the sectoral committee before they go to Brussels. That is a requirement.
There is an absolute logic that the relevant sectoral committee would deal with scrutiny. I mean no disrespect but the previous Oireachtas Joint Committees on European Scrutiny and European Affairs had a hugely onerous task to scrutinise the raft of legislation and directives as they came through but with the best will in world, one loses focus.
This is a very important development and it also frees up this committee to look at the big picture, to engage properly with our MEPs and to come up with some reports to be constructive. I am very privileged to be a member of this committee at this point and to see things done in that way.
I thank the Deputy and the MEPs. This is the beginning of-----
Ms Phil Prendergast MEP
A beautiful relationship.
I hope it is not the beginning of the end.
This has been extremely valuable and I thank everyone for staying because we had hoped that our business would have been concluded an hour ago.
Ms Phil Prendergast MEP
We extend our best wishes to the Chairman and the committee.
I thank Ms Prendergast. We appreciate that.