Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to welcome Dr. Gavin Barrett from the UCD School of Law. He is the second recipient of the Oireachtas parliamentary fellowship which was established in 2009 to mark the 90th anniversary of the first meeting of Dáil Éireann. The fellowship is designed to advance the study of the Houses of the Oireachtas and Dr. Barrett has been researching the evolving role of our national Parliament in European affairs. The results of the fellowship have been published in a 275-page report and this meeting gives us an opportunity to talk about the findings. I have asked Dr. Barrett to focus on three key issues: what is and is not working in the scrutiny and oversight of EU proposals; what an enhanced role for the Oireachtas in EU affairs, including the committee system and this committee, in particular, might look like and who needs to drive its development; and the wider debate on a greater role for national parliaments in the EU system. Members who will attend the COSAC meeting in Vilnius in three weeks will be aware that a session has been designated to this subject. I will contribute on our behalf, as will others. In advance of that meeting, this is a useful opportunity to discuss Dr. Barrett's views on how we can seek to achieve a greater role for national parliaments.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I invite Dr. Barrett to make his opening remarks.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to come before the committee. I will first discuss the wider EU debate on a greater role for national parliaments, after which I will consider what an enhanced role for the Oireachtas might look like and then I will comment, in so far as I can, on what seems to me, from the outside, to work and not work with regard to scrutiny and oversight.

The role of national parliaments has greatly increased in recent years and I traced through this progression, perhaps in excessive detail, in chapter 3 of the report. I do not propose to go into it in too much detail. Suffice it to say there was hardly any mention of national parliaments in the original treaties. The real focus was on the European Parliament but this proved inadequate, partly because of the continuing reality that people primarily identify with reference to their nationality and not the fact they are European, and because of low turnouts in European Parliament elections. The position of national parliaments has changed gradually over time and the legal instruments have reflected this. We had declarations at Maastricht, protocols adopted at Amsterdam and protocols and treaty provisions adopted at Lisbon which came into force in 2009.

Apart from the limited nature of the success of the European Parliament as the standard bearer of European democracy, there are all kinds of historical reasons the focus has shifted to national parliaments. They are set out on page 129 of the report. Increasing the role of national parliaments has helped defuse arguments about the growth of a democratic deficit at European level, to some extent at least. Arguably it has been necessary also to avoid national executives escaping from democratic control due to the transfer of decision making to European level. A bigger role for national parliaments is compensation for the change made in 1979 which meant membership of the European Parliament was no longer made up of national parliamentarians. Direct elections put an end to this.

The profile of national parliaments has grown and we can look forward to this continuing because there is a general feeling that come the next major treaty revision, the terms of the subsidiarity protocol will probably be widened to allow a review of EU instruments by national parliaments, for example by reason of violations of proportionality or failure to give adequate reasoning for legislation. The question we should ask is whether we are right to continue to extend the role of national parliaments, in particular in terms of supervision of government ministers. Many arguments can be put forward in favour of it and some against it. In favour is the argument that it is the role of national parliaments to supervise the national government on behalf of the electorate in all of the Government's activities without exception, including EU matters. Also in favour is the argument that increased supervisory powers are needed to compensate for the transfer at European level, and I have already commented on this. There is also the argument that an increased role for parliament can strengthen the hand of ministers at European level because their arguments become better rehearsed and they have a better excuse for being tenacious at European level. It can also be argued that the European Parliament is inherently, or in practice, incapable of providing sufficient democratic legitimacy. There are also arguments based on the idea a national parliamentary role brings Europe closer to the citizens.

It is also possible to raise arguments against increasing the role of national parliaments. One can argue it leads to increased polarisation, more difficulty in reaching agreements at European level and disruption of the delicate compromises needed to get agreement at European level. Curiously enough, the experience throughout Europe seems to have been that an enhanced role for national parliaments does not increase popular acceptance of decisions at EU level, because the states with the greatest scrutiny are sometimes those with the greatest of degree of euroscepticism.

Overall the consensus is that, on balance, the democratic legitimacy of the EU requires the input of national parliaments and the European Parliament, but we need to think very carefully about how and when national parliaments are empowered to intervene. We need to be aware of a number of issues in particular in empowering national parliaments. We must recall parliaments are forums and not actors. Sometimes the division is presented as the executive on one side and the legislature on the other and never the twain shall meet. In reality, we are all aware the real division is between the executive and its supporters who are the majority in the national parliament on one side and the opposition on the other. If one establishes a system which does not take account of this real dichotomy as opposed to the more theoretical one, it will not work. Arguably, this is why the subsidiarity mechanism has not been a greater success.

Bearing in mind this dichotomy tells us what we can expect committees to do. We can expect monitoring scrutiny, in other words demanding information on the government's activities to be done by all committee members, even government supporters, but political scrutiny, in other words assessing how appropriate the government's behaviour is at European level, is something which, in reality, will only ever be done, if at all, by opposition members on the committee just as is the case in plenary session of parliament. One must remember the real division in this regard.

A second factor to bear in mind is that parliaments are subject to serious constraints, such as informational asymmetry, in carrying out their role. The executive has all of the information but the legislature does not. This takes some counteracting for which informative mechanisms are required. Many parliamentarians are simply just not interested in European scrutiny. At the end of the day, it does not win one votes, and this is a serious handicap in making the system work with regard to European scrutiny. It must be borne in mind also.

A point which is important for us to remember is that a parliament needs to balance centralisation and decentralisation in its functioning when it comes to EU affairs. There has been a shift in the Oireachtas to sectoral committees with regard to scrutiny, and appropriately so because the scope of the European Union is so wide at this stage that it is impossible for a single committee to act as a sinkhole for all European Union matters. At the same time, we all know it is not necessarily working all that well in some respects. As was discovered by the Dutch lower house, there are potential disadvantages to an entirely sectoral approach which lacks any centralised co-ordination. The experience in more than one member state, and not only the Netherlands, is that leaving everything to individual sectoral committees can lead to European policy matters being neglected in favour of more familiar domestic issues, and consequently one ends up with an inadequate level of scrutiny. We must ask ourselves whether this is happening in Ireland and, if so, whether there is anything we can do about it. The state which has coped best with this particular problem is Finland, which, like Ireland, has sectoral committees to deal with European issues, but they all report to a grand committee, and this seems to have been able to make the system work.

I will now consider what an enhanced role for the Oireachtas in EU affairs might look like and who needs to drive it. It is a very good question and the reason is there is no one role for national parliaments throughout Europe in European affairs. There are many possible roles and jobs for them to do but they cannot do all of them well, so there is an element of having to concentrate and having to choose. I am involved in an international project producing a handbook of national parliaments in the EU. Other people in the room are also involved, such as Dr. Claudia Hefftler who is in the Public Gallery. The project describes five idealised roles for national parliaments, and various states have variations of one or other. A national parliament can be a public forum.

In other words, it can use parliamentary activities to provide information for a wider public, and we do that in Ireland both in our plenary session and in committees. It can act as a government watchdog, making the government account for what it is doing either before or after its activities, and it is hoped it can exert an influence in that regard. It can act more aggressively as a policy shaper, if required, and the Germans act in this way. This involves groups of parliamentarians actively trying to influence government policy matters. It can act as an expert body, and the House of Lords famously does this, providing independent expertise with regard to various European questions. Of course, the reports are read from one end of Europe to the other. A parliament can also act as a European player. This means it does not just try to influence the government but rather what is happening at a European level. A mix of these actions or all of them can be attempted but ultimately a couple must be prioritised, and it is difficult to do everything well.

In chapter 6 of my study I give a list of actions that might be useful to attempt. I will rattle them off quickly rather than discuss them. One is a system for influencing policy-making in the period before draft legislation is formally adopted at European level. That is on page 266. That would apply if a country wants to be a European player and it essentially involves taking part in the political dialogue with European Union institutions. Second, there is a system of dealing with a position once draft legislation is formally proposed at European Union level. That relates to securing accountability in what Ministers do and agree in Council. Securing accountability for what Ministers do is likely to remain the main democratic function of national parliaments when it comes to European Union affairs. Such a process can be used more effectively either with a scrutiny reserve system or a mandate system, and in the absence of those, it would become a little more difficult. That is why two sub-committees of the House have recommended the introduction of the scrutiny reserve system.

Third, there is a system that would oversee the adoption of measures in Ireland to implement European Union directives and regulations. We can return to the issue with questions but it is a major lacuna in Ireland because we simply do not have an effective system in that regard. Fourth, there is a system to deal with European Union initiatives that do not involve the adoption of legislation at all, and they can be significant. For example, large parts of Europe 2020, which involves the expenditure of vast sums of money, are driven by the open method of co-ordination rather than legislation, so if one only examines legislation, one will miss that. Fifth, there is a system for making the Oireachtas an effective forum for a wider and deeper debate by the public. That is part of the reason we are here today. There is also the likes of parliamentary questions and debates on European Council decisions, which are important in that regard.

A third topic relates to what is working in terms of scrutiny and oversight. This is the dangerous stuff as this is where I get to sit back and criticise the Oireachtas and what it is doing. Everything I say must be taken with the caveat that I am on the outside and Members are on the inside, so they have at least as good an idea and perhaps better than I do in this regard. On the positive side, the Oireachtas is doing valuable work related to the European Union, including Dáil questions, debates and the work of committees. They all provide occasions to ventilate European matters - the committees in particular - and examine matters in a more detailed fashion.

Recent positives introduced in this Oireachtas session include the fact that European Council meetings are now preceded by statements. That is in addition to the longer established tradition of having debates afterwards. Scrutiny work has been mainstreamed, although it is not working all that well as of yet. This must be done and we have to make mainstreaming work, so it is a positive step. A parliamentary steering group for European affairs has also been created, which is positive.

What is not working so well? There is much good work being done in trying to provide a forum for the discussion of European Union issues, but attracting public and media attention to it has proved, as of yet, almost unsurmountable. Perhaps there is a role for outreach meetings or structured invited participation, but the process is not working now and we are not getting enough of a public forum.

There is also the idea of expressing policy views before European Union laws are formally drafted, and relatively speaking the Oireachtas has a pretty poor record at European level in this regard. In other words, we are one of the lower performers in terms of contributing to the political dialogue. I know there are two sides to this, and getting a response from the Commission, for example, is not something that works all that well. I have only counted three reports sent this year as part of the political dialogue at European level, so it seems we have a lower level of activity in that respect compared with other countries.

The next issue is the scrutiny system, or tracking developments once draft European Union laws are formally proposed. Technically, we scrutinise everything as they are sent to sectoral committees, although that is not the full picture, as nearly all European draft laws are immediately deemed unworthy of further scrutiny by the various sectoral committees. In fairness, very frequently such action is entirely appropriate, although whether that approach should be taken quite as often as it is now is more open to question. We have used the subsidiarity mechanism twice, which is a bit of a problem.

What about engagement with Ministers? This committee is particularly good in that respect, as are the relevant Ministers, but most recently there had been 43 Council meetings but only 19 occasions of Ministers coming before the relevant committees. Even assuming all those meetings relating to European affairs concerned Council business in some respect, approximately two thirds of the meetings did not evidence scrutiny, which is simply not good enough. That area needs more work.

With regard to overseeing the implementation of European Union rules into Irish law, we know the Oireachtas role is simply a fiction. It is important stuff and, technically, ministerial regulations can be annulled by the Oireachtas, although it has not happened in 40 years of Irish membership. Something is not functioning correctly in that respect. We have to bear in mind that many instruments are dry, technical matters and do not really need to be examined, but that is not the case with all of them. For example, with regard to the EU organ transplant rules, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy White, openly acknowledged that the subject of those rules manifestly merited discussion and consideration in Parliament. I am not criticising this Government specifically as there has been a 40 year lacuna. There is also the overseeing of European Union policies advanced without legislation, which is no small matter. Europe 2020 is just one example of an issue that does not tend to be examined.

I have been asked for suggestions, so if it is acceptable, I will rattle off perhaps ten suggestions.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Rattle them off.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

Perhaps they might be of some use and might be either accepted or rejected. Comparatively speaking, the Oireachtas must up its game in general, because compared with parliaments in other countries, we are falling behind in European Union scrutiny. It would be very useful for the Oireachtas to pay attention to other small countries in particular, as we do not have the resources of Germany or the United Kingdom. Although we have great similarities with the United Kingdom in many respects when it comes to the parliamentary system and it is useful to examine it in that regard, we will never have resources, either in terms of personnel or finance, to mimic the activities of the House of Lords. It is more useful for us to consider the likes of Denmark, Finland and Sweden to see if we can pick up tips from them to scrutinise European matters.

We need to combine decentralisation with centralisation. It is great that we now have scrutiny of EU measures by all committees, but we need feedback to some centralised body, such as this committee. We need to up the ante with regard to ministerial accountability. We also need to up the game with regard to subsidiarity, as we are well down the European ranks. We also need to get going on the various aspects of European Union policy that do not involve legislation, as I have already mentioned, and, if possible, we need to contribute to at least some major debates at European Union level. For example, there is a banking union being constructed around us at a European level and we need to contribute to that discussion. The banks brought down our economy so how are we contributing to that debate? It is only one example of an issue, as there are others that could be considered.

We need to make better use of resources. We have retained a resource that we may not have had after the vote last week, so what use are we making of the Seanad?

What are we going to do with that? Is it possible for the committee to make suggestions in that regard?

We need systems to control the implementation of European Union law and also better systems regarding the adoption of European Union law. That is the scrutiny system as well, which more or less functions but can be improved. We must choose what we will prioritise in that regard.

My conclusion is that much has been done - we really have done a great deal and I have no wish to be negative about this - but there is a great deal more to do as well.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Barrett for those remarks. I appreciate the work he has done in putting together this report over the last number of years. It is a comprehensive document and it will certainly be a very useful guide for members, not just now but in the future, regarding how this committee came about, how European Union committees developed over the years, their roles and responsibilities and the opportunities we have as members of the committee to shape and influence future debates. I thank him for the time and effort he put into this document.

I will take up a few questions and points Dr. Barrett raised. He mentioned the attendance of Ministers earlier in the year. During the EU Presidency many of our Ministers were overseas and in Brussels, so there was a reduction in the level of ministerial attendance at meetings. That was understandable and they can be forgiven in that instance, but I take his point that generally and in the steady state world there should be greater attendance by Ministers.

Regarding what we can do, one of the suggestions in chapter 5 is that we send our reasoned opinions and political dialogue to Europe regarding forthcoming legislation. That is something we do already and intend to do more. For example, with regard to the social dimension and the paper that was published last week by the Commission outlining a list of indicators we must monitor at European level, that is something this committee will be debating over the coming weeks. We will ask various parties, such as the youth societies in Ireland and unemployed groups, to appear before the committee to give their opinions on how social indicators can work and how we can ensure we include all the relevant measures. We will send a reasoned opinion on that to Brussels.

There is no doubt that there must be better engagement. Dr. Barrett points out in his report that after the National Forum on Europe was shut down, the slack was supposed to be taken up by committees such as this one. Although we do our best to try to generate media interest, to date we have had limited success. We try to highlight that various meetings are taking place and we try to promote our work programme, but it is very difficult to do. Any suggestions Dr. Barrett has as to how we can make the media give greater coverage to the committee's proceedings would be useful, because there is a gap. It is particularly important given the need to ensure there is understanding among the public of what is happening at European level and to ensure democratic legitimacy. The turnout at European elections has been reducing over recent elections, and we are very worried about the potential turnout in next year's election.

Increasing people's understanding of what is happening in Europe is very important, particularly given the fact that things such as the European Semester, the six pack and the two pack are now in play. Most people are of the view that we will wave the troika goodbye in two months and that will be the end of the involvement of Europe in how we set our budgets, but that is not the case. With the six pack, the two pack and the European Semester, from now on our budgets will be monitored extremely closely in line with the governance in place throughout Europe. That is not understood by our people and it is through committees such as this that it is to be hoped we can educate them as to what this new governance will mean.

I thank Dr. Barrett again for his report. I might ask some specific questions later but first I call Senator Colm Burke.

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Barrett for his submission and comprehensive report. I agree with everything he said. As somebody who was in the European Parliament for a short period, what hit me when I returned was the lack of scrutiny in Ireland and the lack of information about what was coming down the track from Europe. The Commission sets out its programme in November each year for the following 12 months. We do not discuss that in any committee or in either the Dáil or Seanad. We must start doing that and examining what is coming down the tracks in the next 12 months or two years. That was very evident with regard to a number of directives that came through and were in place for a number of years before the public became aware of them. One was the directive on turf cutting. Another which I had to deal with when I was in the European Parliament related to environmental impact studies for simple matters such as mussel seed harvesting. I recall being in Cromane in Kerry and being told that it was a new EU directive, but the directive had been in place for over eight years and €5 million had been allocated to a Department to assist with carrying out the environmental impact studies. However, because people were unaware of the directive, most of that money was returned to Brussels as it was not used. That is the issue in getting information out.

Two years ago, I suggested that the Seanad set aside two days a month to deal with European affairs alone. The problem was that when I assisted the Leader of the Seanad in making a submission regarding backup support staff, the proposal was not agreed to. That was unfortunate.

The other issue I was involved in was cross-border health care. I was directly involved in steering that directive through the European Parliament. It was finally signed off in February 2011, but 13 months later, as it must be in place by 24 October, the public has no information about their rights under this new directive. The directive is about one's entitlement to travel to another member state if one cannot get health care in this country or if there is undue delay. For that reason there should not only be debate and discussion on EU directives in committees but also in the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is about getting information out. Sometimes committees are doing very good and detailed work but, unfortunately, there is no media focus on that. However, there is a higher level of focus on the Dáil and Seanad, so there is a need to open them to having debates on that area. It is something I would support.

Dr. Barrett mentioned the role of the Seanad. If he were in our position, now that the Seanad has a mandate from the public in terms of it remaining in being but that there is a need for reform, how would he envisage the Seanad developing its role with regard to European affairs? Will he outline his views on how it could be used effectively in that way?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Dr. Barrett on his compilation. It is extremely interesting. The fact that it criticises some of our activity, or lack of activity, is no harm. First, we need a considerable amount of time to digest it and discuss it at length with Dr. Barrett. There is little sense in producing such a report and doing nothing about it afterwards.

I strongly disagree with some of it, as Dr. Barrett will readily expect. There is a contradiction in the simultaneous growth in strength of the national parliaments and the European Parliament. They are on a conflict course; they must be. If I am a Member of the European Parliament, I will naturally resent other members states' national parliaments influencing to too great an extent what I am trying to do and, regardless of whether I like it, I will have an affinity with my own country. That is the European parliamentarian's perspective. I mean no disrespect to my colleague but if I were a Member of the European Parliament, and I have no intention of ever being one, that would be my perspective.

By the same token, for the Member of the Parliament in this country, there is a resentment, which we see around us all the time, of being forced to accept directives coming from Brussels and things happening outside our control. Dr. Barrett made an important point. In national parliaments there is a lack in the sense of taking ownership of the European project.

That is a fact. Also, in our nearest neighbour there is a total avoidance of taking ownership of the European project, which in turn can lead only to a dysfunctional European structure at some stage, perhaps in the not-too-distant future. There is a lack of cohesion in the evolution to which he has referred. It does not work that way.

The Chairman and I were here when decisions were taken to restructure the role of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. The intention was that the committee would have an overarching role in scrutiny. That does not happen. The reason, which has been borne out by previous experience, is that when Departments wish to get something through a committee system they can do so by finding the most friendly committee. That is what happens and, human nature being what it is, it will continue to happen. It does not happen so much at present because, to be fair to the previous and current Ministers, they address the committee. The Tánaiste comes before this committee before, during and after his meetings in Europe, so there is not much more we can do about that. An aspect that Dr. Barrett has not referred to is how Ministers and Deputies make themselves available for a sufficient length of time to be able to deal with the matters at issue. That has not been dealt with by anybody during my time on this committee or associated committees. In an experiment we conducted some years ago, which is being done now to some extent in a different way, we had a consultant who scrutinised everything beforehand. It automatically followed that the issues we wanted to discuss at a particular time had already been discussed a long time before. The consultancy and members scrutinised the proposals prior to the drafting stage and we were alerted as to what was coming down the tracks. We dealt with them effectively then. We did not deal with the proposals on turf cutting. I do not claim any responsibility for that because I was not a member of the committee at that stage. It is ironic. This is where members of a committee must always be alert to the implications of what is happening before it becomes a reality.

I would like the Chairman to agree to a longer debate on this issue in the not-too-distant future. If we are to make a response, it should be a worthwhile response and we should address the issues.

On the question of a single committee versus a sectoral committee, I remember making the point years ago that in order to do that effectively the committee would need to meet for an hour every day the House sits.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

This committee?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, this committee would have to do that. It could not be done otherwise. It might even have to meet on Monday through to Friday in order to keep up to speed and do all the things that are necessary. That should be borne in mind. If the European Union affairs committee were to have an overarching role, the sectoral committees would need to meet on a timely basis to deal with issues that were to come before the EU affairs committee, and the reports would have to come before the committee on time and on a weekly basis. Both Chambers of the Houses of the Oireachtas would need to be involved in that, be it though the committee system or whatever other way. In the House of Commons, there are more eurosceptics, whereas the House of Lords seems to be more progressive and constructive. How can we devise a system in Europe to ensure that all member states sing off one hymn sheet and go in the same direction generally at the same time without imposing on each other? That is the technique we must develop to a greater extent.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had interesting contributions to this debate. The Chairman has read Dr. Barrett's report, which is 275 pages long. I am sure every other member of the committee has read it too. I must confess that I read a seven-page synopsis. I am saying this deliberately. One will see from the minutes of the previous meeting that we discussed the eighth, ninth and twelfth reports of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and the decision of this committee was to note them as part of correspondence.

I see people getting excited because the people have voted to retain the Seanad. Well, if Members of the Seanad think they can do what the House of Lords is doing or whether they should be allowed to, given the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the Seanad, then I think we are barking up the wrong tree.

Why did I make public that I did not read Dr. Barrett's 275-page report? If members were honest, they would probably admit they did not read it either. It comes down to a fundamental issue that I do not think was mentioned, although, interestingly enough, around 12 months ago some previous witnesses mentioned it. I will mention it again because it is a very unpopular thing to hear from the mouth of a politician who has been very successful in using the clientelist form of politics that gets people elected to Parliament here because of the use of the single transferable vote and the immediate competition between politicians from the designated constituencies. Would Dr. Barrett agree that if one wants a particular degree of scrutiny and oversight - which we are not going to get - the report makes absolute sense, but simple things such as the resources of Members mean that one will not get an Irish parliamentarian to devote him- or herself to scrutiny and oversight to the degree that is suggested in this report, given the clientelist nature of the political process?

Has Dr. Barrett looked at other systems? He mentioned the Danish, the Swiss and the Norwegian systems. It might be interesting for this committee to look at how they do it, and we may visit, if that is not a heresy in this day and age, to see how they do it. I am absolutely convinced that they do not have a single transferable vote system. Under a list system, people who are chosen to be members of parliament from the list have specialist skills and interests in particular topics and subjects and can be more easily placed than can be done here. Deputy Durkan touched on this when he talked about the committee meeting for an hour a day seven days a week. The resources are not there to give members the serious level of backup that we would require to go into such analysis. I am involved in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and we have to deal with this topic. It is an interesting debate because when the Chairman hosted the German-Irish Lawyers and Business Association, one of the questions from the audience was on this very issue of oversight. Given the evolution of the role of the national Parliament vis-à-vis Europe and the strengthening position of Europe as a body of 28 member states, its powers may be of more fundamental importance to the citizens of countries than their national parliaments. I would like to think we could follow up in a serious way on some of Dr. Barrett's suggestions.

A comment would be appreciated. The Prime Minister of Ireland had to write a letter to the Irish MEPs seeking their support on the tobacco directive. Is that not a strange position for a nation to be in? This committee meets once a week. We note much stuff that comes before us, but we do not analyse it. Am I being too pessimistic? There is the issue of the banks evolving in Europe at the moment, but if that comes before us, we kick it off to the finance committee which will look after it.

Just because the people say we want to have a Seanad, we cannot devolve the responsibility to Senators. The Oireachtas structure will need to be fundamentally reformed in order to address what Dr. Barrett addresses in 275 pages.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I ask Dr. Barrett to comment, let us remember that the Seanad referendum was last week, so let us not go down the road of discussing referendums that have just taken place.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I tried to elbow my colleague but he was impervious to my elbow.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

I did pick up some disagreements on the fate of the Seanad and whether that was desirable. I would first like to comment on the Chairman's point about Ireland's Presidency, which was enormously successful. My points are not directed at this Government, which has been better than most in respect of ministerial attendance. This has been a four-decade-long practice and there really has not been sufficient attendance of Ministers here for us to be able to say that ministerial performance in Council meetings is rendered sufficiently accountable. I am delighted to hear that a submission will be made to the social dialogue as well.

Suggestions to gain media attention are so difficult, because I find European issues fascinating but I must acknowledge they are not always at the top of the list of what people want to read. Outreach programmes would be one suggestion. Structured involvement by particular parties might be another. In other words, the committee might invite regularly the same parties, such as farmers' organisations, trade unions and so on, to appear here. Perhaps the committee should copy the approach of the National Forum on Europe, which might involve taking it out of the committee room and having such meetings in a larger forum and getting people in on a regular basis to express their views. I notice that the television broadcasts of these proceedings are confined to UPC, which reaches about 20% of the population. I do not know if it is possible to increase that. If it were, that would be a great contribution and would put the Oireachtas into the living rooms of the country, if anyone was prepared to switch it on.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Local radio stations run a selection of commentary from committee proceedings and play them, so that helps increase awareness of the work of the committees as well.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

All of these things help. Senator Burke has a unique perspective as he has been in the European Parliament as well as the Oireachtas. There are major problems. There are different electoral cycles. Many European initiatives take years to come to fruition, so that if a submission is made here, no political payback is seen. The Senator's story about the directive reminded me of a relative of mine getting a letter from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine about the nitrates directive, telling him exactly how many cubic centimetres of nitrates his cows were permitted to produce. That is a facetious story at one level, but it is important all the same because it reminds us that many of our problems with the implementation of directives come down to their implementation within the country. If that was done in a better way, perhaps we would have fewer problems. If the Oireachtas did a better job in controlling statutory instruments, then perhaps the kinds of difficulty the Senator was talking about would not have arisen, because a better job would have been done on controlling their implementation in the first place. I suspect the Seanad could do some work in that respect. That leads on to the next question. What can we do with the Seanad? Deputy Byrne raised that issue as well. The Seanad could be given a role on some of the jobs I have identified. For instance, if it is not possible for Deputies to find the time to police the implementation of European Union law, or if it is not worth their while because it is not electorally fruitful for them, perhaps it could be farmed over to the Seanad. It would be better to have the Seanad doing this than nobody doing it at all, no matter how democratic or undemocratic we feel it is. We have a glorious opportunity as there is huge pressure at the moment to reform the Seanad. There is also a great amount of work to be done in the European Union field. There is work to be done and reforms are needed, so perhaps we could make them join up and give the Seanad a better role. Let us give the Seanad what the committees do not want to do at the end of the day. If they do not want to supervise statutory instruments, that function can be given to the Seanad. If they do not want to hear Ministers before and after Council meetings, that function could be given to the Seanad. If they do not want to do the subsidiarity control mechanism, the Seanad could be given a bigger role in it, although that is slightly different in that both Houses have to be involved. A committee such as this could do an enormous amount of good by coming up with a report on how we can use the Seanad. We should get everybody who was involved in the Seanad debate, such as Michael McDowell, Senator Zappone and so many-----

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Steady on.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

-----others, to discuss the issue. I think there is a role for the Seanad and now is the time to think about it.

Deputy Durkan mentioned the issue of the conflict between national parliaments and the European Parliament. I suspect both of them have a role. It is impossible for national parliaments to have a fully European perspective. We are going to see things from our own perspective in the Oireachtas. In the European Parliament, we get a more European perspective. At the same time, the European Parliament cannot do the job on its own by reason of the fact that people identify themselves primarily in national terms and also by virtue of the falling participation rates. It may well be a shotgun marriage, but I suspect the partnership between the two will be a long-lasting one, and we will have to do the best we can to make it work.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Swedish European affairs committee provides a mandate to its Minister at European Council meetings. That committee has a veto. How would we do that right across the EU if every European affairs committee did the same thing?

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

It is difficult. There are no easy answers. We have to ask whether a mandate system or scrutiny system would be workable, but on the other hand, countries with mandate systems and scrutiny systems tend to be those in which Ministers are more respectful of national parliaments. There are two sides to this and I take the Deputy's point.

He also raised the issue of the centralised committee problem and how difficult it would be to get reports made to the European Union affairs committee, as the committee might have to meet every day of the week. I do not know the answer to that, but we could ask the Finns. We should get somebody from Finland over here to talk about it, because they have made it work. It can be done and it has been done by a country with the same population as this country.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In page 14 of your report, you refer to the resources available to parliaments such as the Finnish Parliament, the New Zealand Parliament and small parliaments such as those of Scotland and Wales, all of which have greater resources than us. That is a big problem. Our staff do tremendous work, but there are only a certain number of them. We would have to look at resources if we were to up our game like the Finns.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

Absolutely. We have choices to make in that regard. We cannot expect to have a system that functions as well as the system in these countries if we are not prepared to pay for it. We cannot do democracy on the cheap. We have to foot the bill for it.

I apologise to Deputy Byrne about the length of the report. It is meant to be dipped into and not used as bedtime reading. I do not share his view of the Seanad being undemocratic, but we had better not go into that because we all have different views on it. He raised the issue of the difficulty of scrutiny in a parliamentary system in which we have the single transferable vote.

I agree with the Deputy's point of view and in chapter six I make more or less the same point in that regard. Some people are of the view that the current voting system is a good one while others disagree. In my view it exacerbates the tendency towards excessive localism in Irish politics. If it is not possible to get Members of the Dáil to participate to the same extent as Senators in scrutiny because of the greater pressures on them it might be a way we could use the Seanad. The people have decided to keep the Seanad so maybe we should use it if necessary as a means of compensating for the excessive localism that PR by single transferable vote imposes on all Deputies. It is not their fault.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Pure localism gets the Senators elected. It is the crudest form of localism, with the votes of the county councillors and city councillors.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

That can be changed. The electoral system for the Seanad can be changed.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was debatable last week, but the Seanad has remained; it is there.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

I think there are answers there if we are prepared to look at them. There might be solutions to the problems and I agree they are very real problems. The question of the Prime Minister of Ireland speaking to MEPs and asking them to represent the position he wished to see in the European Parliament comes down to the question of the separation of powers at European Union level and the different functions. National interests are represented in the Council of Ministers and the MEPs represent what they perceive to be the interests of their constituents, which may or may not coincide with the views of the Prime Minister of the country from which they come. I assume that is what the Irish Members of the European Parliament were doing.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I also thank Dr. Barrett for his presentation, which is very timely. Yesterday I met with Claudia and Oliver. I did not know about the structures and I am delighted to hear that I am not misinformed or uninformed and that in fact we do not have a proper structure. I have a question about media attention. I issue press releases on various matters and I know it is impossible to get attention for anything related to the EU. I have concentrated on EU matters in the past six months but it is not interesting or sexy enough for the general public and we have to live with that.

The Seanad has had a near-death experience. There is a real need for roles for the Seanad. For as long as I have been in the House we have been calling for the Seanad to undertake EU scrutiny. I refer to your point, Eric-----

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All contributions must be through the Chair and relevant to today's proceedings.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair, I wish to make the point that localism and the avoidance of it was probably one of the reasons the Seanad was established in the first place. The original intention was that it would be a different type of House from the other House, which is the whole point. Deputy Byrne makes the point that it is undemocratic but by doing so he is making the point for me that the Seanad could be a place where EU legislation is debated, because localism is something that does not exist in the Seanad, as opposed to the Dáil. I am making my point in a very convoluted way but it highlights why the House was instituted in the first place. EU scrutiny would be an ideal role for the House, now that we have a mandate. It is one of the more democratic mandates the Seanad has had. I certainly agree with Deputy Byrne; I would have no problem with a change in the Seanad electoral system and it could be very effective.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Dr. Barrett on his extraordinary piece of work. Some of the speakers referred to suggestions and recommendations. To be fair to Dr. Barrett, he has put a lot of issues forward for discussion. I refer to the ten suggestions at the end. I did not find them in the text but I jotted them down. The recommendations in No. 6 could fill the Chairman's work programme without difficulty for the next two and a half to three years. I suggest that we examine some of the suggestions as this is only a preliminary meeting. This is a report about the Oireachtas so it is about ourselves.

Dr. Barrett has listed ten recommendations. The report in its entirety is too vast to read in full. Dr. Barrett addresses issues which every parliament in Europe is wrestling with, some more successfully than others. If we were to take a starting point, should we refer to Denmark, Finland or Sweden? Which one would Dr. Barrett recommend that we engage with immediately?

On the issue of subsidiarity, there has been some discussion about the Seanad. I think we should decide what we want to do first and then subsequently decide how we are going to do it, whether in committee or in the Seanad, or whatever. I refer to the issue of quantum of work. This Legislature is undergoing change in that legislation will come to committees before being drafted by the Departments. This will create significant work for committees and, given the resources available to them, I wonder how they will be able to compete with and mirror what whole Departments are doing. Should we engage in drafting legislation or should we engage with European legislation that has been formally proposed in Europe? It seems to me to be a stretch too far to try to do both at the beginning.

We send MEPs to Europe. What structure of formal engagement with our MEPs can be possible, given the separation of powers? MEPs attend our committee meetings very occasionally. I refer to recommendation No. 3, which is about combining decentralisation and centralisation - a bit of a contradiction. There is no conduit for councils to send a message to the Dáil. Equally, there is no conduit between our Parliament and the European Parliament. Our parties have MEPs and we will meet ours at the Fine Gael conference this weekend. However, I do not think this committee sends MEPs to Brussels with a sufficiently Irish message from us. I ask how this might be improved. Our councils do not send a message to the national Parliament because we have done away with the dual mandate. I have no doubt we will be speaking to Dr. Barrett at another meeting.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

Most of what Senator Noone said were comments rather than questions. I take her point about EU affairs.

Matters European are something akin to taxation law or the texts of mortgage agreements. It is all incredibly important stuff, but nobody wants to read through it. I sympathise with the difficulty of trying to get people interested in it. As I said, it is vital work, but the public reward for doing it is not as great as it should be.

Deputy Dara Murphy gave me enough questions to keep me going for several months, and they are all excellent questions. The Deputy is correct about the items I did not include in my report. That is because I was asked to do something different for this committee meeting. The suggestions we have discussed today will build on the report.

In terms of which countries we should look to, I am tempted to say Finland. There are several very serious academic experts in that country and it is very comparable to Ireland in terms of its size. It is, above all, a country that is making things work in terms of the interaction between national parliament and Europe. The Danish system is another which has attracted much attention. In both cases, there is a mandate system, which is an important factor. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about what a mandate system actually is. People assume that it involves the mandated committee telling government what to do. That is no more the case in countries with mandate systems than it is in countries such as Ireland in which, for the most part, the Legislature itself determines the content of legislation. In our case, the Oireachtas signs off on all legislation. When one considers the terms of the Constitution, one might assume it would be the determiner of the content of legislation. In reality, however, the Government proposes legislation and, notwithstanding the scope for some degree of change, it is the Government that is the driving force behind it and responsible for the bulk of the content. In countries with mandate systems, likewise, it is the Executive that determines the debates that take place. All that mandate systems do - and scrutiny reserve systems, for that matter - is ensure the involvement of parliaments. While we do need to be aware of that misapprehension, it is nevertheless well worth looking at such systems. I would examine the Finnish system in the first instance, but the Danish system is likewise well worth considering. Both are small countries from which we can draw lessons.

The Deputy's point about deciding what we want to do and then asking by whom it should be done is a good one with which I agree in principle. However, I suggest that we should decide the "what" very quickly. In the case of Seanad reform, for example, public pressure to act could well dissipate over time. There is an opportunity now to achieve something in this regard, and it should be seized. I take the Deputy's point, however, that the Government must decide the issues it will prioritise.

I also take the Deputy's point that this committee is already being asked to take on a larger role in terms of legislation. This is the perennial issue in regard to European legislation - that it tends to get driven to the end of the agenda, where it potentially will not be done very well.

The question was also raised of whether the Oireachtas should concentrate on draft EU legislation before it comes to the draft stage or when it is formally proposed. That really depends on what members want to achieve. If they want to exercise real influence at European level, then it is too late by the time the legislation is drafted. Proposals are already more or less set in stone at that stage. There might be some scope for amending around the edges, but the bulk of the content is already there. If member states want to influence that content, they must get in there early before the legislation is formally proposed. On the other hand, it comes down to a question of where within the five different models I outlined one wishes to position oneself. If Ireland wishes to be a European player, it must get in before the legislation is proposed. That is beyond doubt.

I was also asked about the best structure for formal engagement with MEPs. I was very impressed to see that Ms Emer Costello MEP appeared before the Seanad recently. I am not sure whether other MEPs did the same.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes; all the MEPs attended those sessions.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

I only saw the discussion in which Ms Costello participated. That is an excellent initiative which will prove useful for the future. I do not know how the ideal form of engagement might look. I can say that one area in which we have proved very weak is in using the resources we have at European level. For instance, we have a former director of the World Trade Organization. The current director of the European Union Civil Service, Ms Catherine Day, is Irish, as is her predecessor in that role. In addition, we have a former President of the European Parliament. These people, among whom I include our MEPs, represent an amazing resource of which we are not making full use. I do not know exactly how the engagement should be structured, but structured it can and should be. The committee might well have a role in that regard. It should at least be possible, for example, to have meetings with MEPs from time to time in respect of particular proposals.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We moved the day on which meetings of the committee take place to facilitate the attendance of our 12 MEPs. Unfortunately, none is in attendance today.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People are somewhat preoccupied today and probably for several days to come.

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

In regard to my point regarding decentralisation and centralisation, there is not actually a contradiction there. I am referring here to subsidiarity within the Oireachtas. There is a need for decentralisation in the sense that all committees must become involved. It is not possible in a single committee to have sufficient expertise to deal with agriculture, fisheries, the environment and so on. At the same time, if we simply leave them to operate on their own without any central control, it will not work. That is the context in which I am arguing that both centralisation and decentralisation are needed.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Dr. Barrett. I understand Deputies Bernard Durkan and Eric Byrne both wish to put a brief supplementary question.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chairman. In regard to mandating, when we met delegates from the large Swedish European affairs committee earlier this year, we asked them on whose behalf they are operating when they issue a direction to their Minister - that is, on behalf of the European Union or on their own behalf. They did not answer that question. My conclusion was that they acted on their own behalf. They also made the point that they had a particular association with several other countries, all of which, it was noted, have a strong eurosceptic element. Will Dr. Barrett comment on those points?

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How does Dr. Barrett envisage the other committees dealing with issues that are relevant to them, such as transport or banking? Does he, for example, see a system whereby departmental committees would refer their analysis to an overarching committee, which may or may not be this particular committee?

Dr. Gavin Barrett:

In response to Deputy Bernard Durkan, I would expect any scrutiny reserve system - indeed, any system that deals with national Ministers - to represent the national position. That is what the Council of Ministers is for; it is a forum in which each country can represent its own national position at European Union level. I would be surprised if any mandate system did anything other than that. In terms of how such systems function, in the case of Denmark, for instance, the Government itself decides when it wants a mandate, in which case it drafts the mandate and presents it to Parliament. Far from Parliament telling the Government what to do, the Danish situation has been described as one in which the Parliament becomes an extra member of the Government.

The Deputy is absolutely correct in his point regarding euroscepticism. It is indeed the case that the states with the best-functioning systems in terms of parliamentary control of government tend to be the more eurosceptic. Perhaps Ireland can be the first to break that mould.

In terms of its relationship with other committees, an enhanced system of oversight and scrutiny would increase the workload of this particular committee enormously. Of course, that oversight role would not necessarily be taken by this committee but by a committee established for that particular purpose, for example, or perhaps by a sub-committee of this committee. In any case, it would require one committee to be in control to make the system work. If we simply let every committee do whatever it wants, it should come as no surprise if some do well and others badly. Indeed, given the pressures the committees are under, it might not be a great surprise if all of them were to perform rather poorly.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Time is the major issue.

I thank Dr. Barrett for his very comprehensive report and his engagement with members. I propose that we send a transcript of today's proceedings to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and invite him to attend a meeting of the committee to give his comments, particularly on such issues as the Swedish model.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have heard so much about the Swedish model that I am becoming eager to meet her.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had the pleasure of having Dr. Barrett before the committee on several occasions. No doubt we will see him again in the near future.