Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will describe the way these things work in practical terms. There are what I would describe as "headline" meetings at which Ministers discuss at European Council level a proposal from the Commission. During the course of these meetings individual Ministers may raise issues about a particular article of a directive or regulation. If there is general agreement on the principle of the initiative that is worth progressing, it goes to a working group. The country that holds the Presidency of the European Union provides the chair of the working group. In the context of this measure, the working group would have been chaired by a member of my Department. At the meetings there are representatives of each of the member states and there is a first reading and engagement on each of the articles proposed to ascertain whether the substance and the content can be agreed to and whether there is consensus on them. If there is a major issue which presents a difficulty, it may come back for discussion at the Council of Ministers. Once the terms of the measure are agreed to on the ministerial side, there is formal engagement with the European Parliament and the relevant committee. Normally there is informal engagement with the European Parliament at an earlier stage also.

There are two parliamentary committees - the JURI and the LIBE - one of which appoints a principal rapporteur. If the rapporteur comes from one political grouping in the European Parliament, shadow rapporteurs are appointed by the other parliamentary groupings to engage with the main rapporteur. A process is undertaken between the Parliament, the state that holds the Presidency and the Commission - a trialogue - to work through issues which present a difficulty. Ultimately, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers must agree on the final content of a measure. In simple terms, that is the way the process works. During the course of the Presidency I would have been present at various meetings of either the LIBE or the JURI. I have engaged personally with the rapporteurs appointed to deal with particular measures at plenary meetings before assuming the Presidency and since. On occasion there has been the odd telephone call to try to iron out difficulties about measures in order that they can be progressed.

The way the measure is going there is very little chance the six month minimum sentence provision will survive in the Commission's proposal. Ultimately, if the directive is accepted - we have opted into it - the final arrangements will be agreed to and we will be required to reflect them in domestic law. Certain basic matters contained in the directive will have to be accurately reflected in domestic law; one cannot adopt anà la carte approach to it. Much of what happens is achieved by consensus. However, there may be division within the European Parliament. Some Members of Parliament may be opposed to a particular measure and there may be a vote on it, as not every measure goes through the Parliament by consensus. Ultimately, however, there is agreement between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission on how a measure will be structured at the end of the process.