Neale Richmond (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the opportunity to engage with Ms O'Reilly this afternoon. I am also delighted to welcome my old sparring partner Mr. Aidan O'Sullivan to the committee.

My colleagues have already mentioned Brexit so I will step away from the issue, for once, but I commend Ms O'Reilly on her efforts to ensure that the European side is as transparent as possible. It is an issue that she has raised with us in Brussels long before the negotiations. It has been heartening to see it rolled out. I wish that the UK side was as transparent, perhaps among each other as well as with the European side.

I want to raise three areas. The first may link into the future of Europe, but generally feeds into the post-Brexit scenario, with trade negotiations and discussions. I was an outspoken supporter of both TTIP and CETA, which I felt were both great trade deals. I think CETA will be excellent for the European Union. One of the main reasons TTIP stalled, apart from the change in the political direction of the United States, was the mass opposition which was bred by the idea that it was being done in secret. When I had the trade portfolio in the EU committee of the regions, I looked at the TTIP negotiation documents. I went to a basement in the Berlaymont and had to surrender my mobile phone. I was writing a report on that from the EU side. It set a really bad tone for a process that I thought was very worthwhile. CETA was exactly the same. The opposition lobby pushed those arguments. If we are looking at new trade deals with Malaysia, Vietnam, Australasia, Mercosur is particularly important for this island, I hope that the ombudsman's office is beefed up and is allowed to play the role that it is there to do.

I really have high hopes for the Office of the European Ombudsman.

An area I would like to discuss is the issue of lobbying. I have taken a major interest in the lobbyist register and other measures we have taken in the State. I wonder if there is scope for an EU-wide lobbying register, so that it is not left to the individual member state. I will be frank, many of my friends are lobbyists. When one works in politics, lobbying is an industry that one ends up going into. Who knows, someday I could be forced into it, depending on the will of the people of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown? If an Irish MEP is being lobbied in Brussels by a third party from another member state, there is huge confusion on where responsibility for that lies. Is that lobbying in Belgium, or is it lobbying in Ireland or is it lobbying by a third party lobbyist? There is a lack of clarity and there are too many discrepancies between the member states to allow it be efficient. Is there a way to simplify it? I know I possiblymay be opening a can of worms. Brussels, as a city, just short of Washington has the highest number of lobbyists in the world. It is a difficult area but in order for politics to continue in the best way possible we need the highest level of transparency in our lobbyists. It should not be a black mark for an individual to say I am lobbyist. One does not know what an individual lobbying for. The vast majority of lobbyists are doing it in a very benevolent manner and they are trying to aid the legislative process. More rules and a clearer process makes it easier not just for the lobbyists but in our parlance, the designated public officeholders and officials, such as all of us who are on this side of the room and indeed Ms O'Reilly as well.

I want to raise the issue of political funding and the role of outside bodies in the domestic affairs of individual member states. I will give two examples that are unique to Ireland, first our upcoming referendum on whether to repeal the eighth amendment to the Constitution, Article 40. 3. 3^o. Both sides of the campaign have raised really valid concerns about outside funding coming into the campaign to support campaign groups, be they NGOs or groups that have been just set up for this campaign. I raised the matter on the floor of the Seanad in the context that I received ten separate Facebook advertisements from campaigns seeking to retain the eighth amendment, supposedly from ten separate groups, even though their imagery, language and content was identical. How do we peel that back; what is the single source for that? Where is the funding coming from? The exact same applies to those who are seeking to repeal the eighth amendment. Let me declare publicly I believe in repealing the eighth amendment. There are legitimate concerns about outside funding from the US or other EU funding of certain bodies in this country. Does the European Ombudsman have a role in that area to make sure that it is fair and transparent and that the referendum can be held with the highest level of integrity?

My second point relates to direct political funding. Last week the European grouping for Freedom and Direct Democracy held an event calling for an Irexit, a damp squib in the end. The EFDD group in the European Parliament has no Irish members. No Irish political party is a constituent member, either of their European parliamentary group or their European-wide political family. All of us on this side happen to be members of the Fine Gael Party and we are all members of the European People's Party, EPP. It states that on our membership card therefore when the EPP holds events in Ireland, such as the study days with our MEPs or any campaigning for example on the Lisbon referendum or the fiscal stability, it does so through its member party and we pay a membership fee. What distinguishes any EU political family from member state parties or groupings in the European Parliament and what rights or responsibilities do they have if they are going to act in a member state where they do not have actual constituted member parties? The only member state in which the EPP does not have a member party is the United Kingdom. Could it have launched a campaign on the referendum on Brexit and run an EPP campaign? Could we as a member of the EPP have launched a campaign on Brexit during the referendum? Could we start holding public meetings and using EU funds, which is what the EFDD has, to pursue a political agenda in another member state? I welcome debate on Ireland's future in the European Union but I question why British MEPs and European funding is going to a group that has no Irish members and being used to stimulate that debate. Is the EFDD doing so within the rules? Is it an area in which there needs to be more clarity and what role can the Office of the European Ombudsman take in that?