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

The item on the agenda today is a discussion with newly elected Irish MEPs. I am delighted that we are joined by Ms Lynn Boylan, MEP, and Mr. Brian Hayes, MEP, who were both elected to represent the Dublin constituency in the European Parliament. We are also joined by Mr. Francis Jacobs, head of the European Parliament Information Office in Ireland. I welcome all three to the meeting today which coincides with the Commissioner Designate Hogan's hearings in the European Parliament this morning.
I am very pleased to see Ms Boylan and Mr. Hayes here today. Some of our other MEPs are attending the hearings in Brussels. Apologies have been received from Mr. Matt Carthy, MEP, Ms Nessa Childers, MEP, Ms Deirdre Clune, MEP, Mr. Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, MEP, Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP, and Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, who are in Brussels.
We will start with an update from Mr. Jacobs on what is happening in the European Parliament and recent developments since the election in May. Then I will ask, in turn, Ms Lynn Boylan, MEP, and Mr. Brian Hayes, MEP, to update and brief us on their goals, objectives and what they hope to work on, during their term, over the next four and half years.
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 any 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 the evidence they are to give this committee.

However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I now invite Mr. Francis Jacobs to make his opening statement.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to speak to the committee today. I know that just after the elections in June the committee held a session on what happened in the elections in terms of turnout and so on. I will concentrate today on what has happened since the elections in terms of the structure of the Parliament and also the background to the involvement of the Parliament in the investiture of a new European Commission.

First, to the structure of the European Parliament. The most important question following the election is which political group the newly elected MEPs join because as this committee knows, the political groups are of huge importance in the European Parliament. There was a lot of discussion in the run-up to the elections about the possibility of the structure of the Parliament being affected by a very good performance by anti-system, populist and Euro-sceptic parties. Indeed, the two big political groups have a few less seats than they did in the past, but they still have 55% of the members of the Parliament. The European People's Party, EPP, has 221 members and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, S&D, has 191 members. The question arose as to which group the members of the Euro-sceptic and populist parties would join.

There are a number of familiar groups which have been reconstituted. The liberal group - Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, ALDE, lost quite a few seats but still ended up with 66 in the new Parliament. The left wing socialists - European United Left - Nordic Green Left, GUE-NGL - of which Ms Boylan is a member, returned a pretty large total of seats, with the Greens and a number of regionalist groups joining together in one political family - the Greens-European Free Alliance, Greens-EFA.

The key question was what would happen to the others. The group with the most power of attraction was the group of which the largest component is the British Conservative Party because it was seen as less extremist. It is composed of a wide range of parties, some of which are not even Euro-sceptic. The parties are mildly Euro-sceptic and the group is sustainable in the sense that it is well over the required threshold for a group. In fact, there are two thresholds involved here. The first is to have a minimum number of members, which is relatively easy to obtain. The second is a minimum number of member states - nine - which is much more difficult to achieve. Some of the new groups had great difficulty meeting the second threshold. The conservative group - European Conservatives and Reformists, ECR - now has 71 members and is the third largest group in the Parliament. Nigel Farage of UKIP managed to recruit the big party in Italy, Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement to form a group. That group is fragile in the sense that it only just managed to get the number of nationalities required and if one leaves, the group is in trouble.

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

What would happen then?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

We have seen this happen on numerous occasions in the past. When members leave a group which was just over the margin, the group is dissolved and no longer exists, unless it can manage to recruit members from elsewhere. Marie le Pen and some of the other far-right MEPs were very close to forming a group but failed to do so in the end. What that means is that we now have an exceptionally large number of non-attached members of the European Parliament, totalling 52 out of 751. The majority, although not all of them, are from the far right.

Once the groups have been constituted, the process of distributing members between committees begins. That distribution is very proportional in the European Parliament and is based on the d'Hondt system, in contrast to the US Congress, where it tends to be winner-takes-all. In the US, if one party has one more seat than the other, it wins all of the committee chairs.

Martin Schulz was re-elected President of the European Parliament, which was a remarkable development. It was the first time that happened since direct elections in 1979. Due to the large number of groups in the European Parliament, there was always a tendency to have a changeover after two and a half years so the re-election of Mr. Schulz was really exceptional. Next was the election of Vice Presidents and Questors. Ms Mairead McGuinness was elected as a Vice President of the Parliament, which is the second most senior post an Irish MEP has held since Mr. Pat Cox was President.

Membership of the various committees is very important and I am sure Ms Boylan and Mr. Hayes will speak about that later. The role of committee chairperson is also very important but there is currently no Irish chair of a committee. The delegation leaders have not been finally confirmed yet but is expected to be completed in a week or two.

An important question, apart from who becomes chair and vice chair of committees, is who will be the political group co-ordinators on a committee. They are the people who represent their political group on each committee and take part in the decisions on what work the committee will do and who will draw up its reports and opinions. They play a really important strategic role in the work of the Parliament. There are two Irish co-ordinators in political groups. One is Ms Liadh Ní Riada who is the GUE-NGL group co-ordinator on the Committee on Budgets and the other is Ms Marian Harkin, the co-ordinator for the ALDE group on the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. We do not know yet who will be rapporteurs for the Parliament. The rapporteurs are the people who are asked to draw up the Parliament's reports on all EU legislation and to prepare initiative reports. Of almost equal importance is the question of who will be appointed as shadow rapporteurs. A shadow rapporteur is appointed by his or her political family to deal with particular subjects. Mr. Hayes, for example, is a shadow rapporteur on the capital markets proposal.

That is the basic background information on what has happened since the elections in June and I am very happy to answer any questions members may have in that regard. Before concluding, however, I wish to deal with the Parliament's involvement in the election of the European Commission which is so topical this week.

The most important development before the elections was the fact that five of the seven political groups, for the first time ever, decided to put forward lead candidates whom they wanted to be President of the Commission if they won sufficient seats in the Parliament. There was a lot of scepticism about it. Some political leaders, including Prime Minister David Cameron in the UK, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Hungary and others were very opposed to the system and even Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed reservations. In the end, however, the five main groups in the Parliament decided that they would put forward candidates and the EPP candidate, Jean-Claude Junker was chosen at a meeting in the Convention Centre in Dublin. I mention this because it has had an important impact in the sense that it has provided a greater buy-in than in the past between the European Parliament and the Commission. That was made clear when Mr. Junker was elected, relatively smoothly, in the second July session of the Parliament. He got well over the necessary majority. The majority required is an absolute majority of the members of the Parliament, not a relative one. A candidate needs to get 376 votes to be elected. That was not the case in the past and some past Presidents of the Commission would not have been elected under the new rules, post-Lisbon. Mr. Junker got 422 votes, with 250 members voting against him and 47 abstaining.

In many ways he got a rather good majority, all things considered.

Once the President is chosen, the next stage is member states putting forward their nominees, with the European Parliament considering not only those nominees, but the structure of the Commission as a whole. A really difficult question for much of the summer was whether there would be a sufficient gender balance, as almost all the early nominees were men, and it looked as if the critical threshold that would have satisfied the European Parliament might not have been met. In the end, nine female nominees were put forward and I am sure there will be a view as to whether there is sufficient gender balance; it was enough to defuse the issue.

Once the nominees were finally put forward, with Marianne Thyssen, MEP, being the final nomination at the very end of August, the next question was who would be allocated which job within the Commission. When the Parliament votes, it does not consider individual Commissioners but rather the Commission as a whole. It also considers the programme of a new Commission for the next few years and its structure, which will be put forward by Mr. Juncker. I am sure the President of the European Commission will go into more detail later but he has chosen a structure which has never before been chosen. In addition to the Commissioners with portfolios and specific director generals backing them up, there are also a number of Vice Presidents of the Commission with more of a co-ordinating role. How that will work is a very difficult and important question. The structure of the hearings is that potential Commissioners with individual portfolios are being grilled this week, with the Vice President nominees being grilled by the Parliament on Monday afternoon and Tuesday next week. The entire process is supposed to end on Tuesday.

Why are there hearings in the first place? In the early days there were no such hearings but after the Maastricht treaty came into force in the early 1990s, the European Parliament had a slightly greater role in the choice of the Commission - not as strong as now - and it felt that hearings would be a really useful way of finding out the quality of the individual nominees and in establishing a relationship between the relevant committees of the Parliament and the nominees for the next five years. That had not happened in the past and it was felt to be a really good way of proceeding. There were many reservations within the Commission about this and Mr. Jacques Delors, the outgoing Commission President, advised Mr. Jacques Santer, the incoming Commission President, not to go down this route. Santer was in a rather weak position because he had only just scraped through his vote, and he felt it really important to get the Parliament onside, so he accepted the idea of the hearings. These hearings have taken place since.

I will speak briefly to the process of having hearings on individual candidates. The candidates are asked to submit written answers in advance so that committee members and any interested people can see replies to one or two general questions regarding European commitment, conflicts of interest and so on, as well as specific questions on a prospective portfolio. When I functioned as secretariat of a committee, I experienced the problem of ensuring that all the committees with an interest in a particular nominee would be involved with the hearing. There is a lead committee, and one or two candidates have faced representatives of up to four committees because there is so much overlap. The climate and energy area would overlap a number of parliamentary committees, and there are other areas which have an even stronger reach.

Once this is decided, each nominee - like Mr. Phil Hogan this morning - would speak for a maximum of 15 minutes, with a question-and-answer session following. They would typically start with the co-ordinators of the committee before going to other members of the committee or associated committees. The rule has been established that one minute is allowed per question, with two minutes for the nominee to give an answer. If the question time is exceeded by five seconds or the nominee responding exceeds the allocated time by ten seconds, the microphone is typically cut off by the chairman. This permits a large number of questions, and Mr. Hogan faced 45 questions this morning. At the very end, the nominee can give a five-minute summary.

The committee co-ordinators, which I mentioned before, would meet an hour or so after the hearing to judge how they feel the nominee performed, having sounded out members of their political family. If necessary, they can also convene a full committee meeting and even vote on the issue. They cannot individually reject a nominee but they can write a letter to the President of the Parliament, giving their views on the nominee. The political groups are constantly in touch with each other to discuss how events are proceeding. Several possibilities arise if people are not satisfied with a nominee. One is the writing of a very negative letter, and on a couple of occasions nominees have been asked to answer follow-up questions, and perhaps there could be attempts to convene a follow-up hearing.

Decisions have to be taken on whether to approve a Commission as a whole rather rapidly next week, once hearings conclude. The idea is to vote on the new Commission as a whole in the October plenary session, which is in the third week of October, with the new Commission coming into place in November. In the past, that has not worked because the Parliament has been unhappy with one or more nominees and there has not been time to replace them. In such cases there has been deadlock, and in the worst-case scenario, the process would be delayed for a couple of months. This occurs rarely, although it has happened.

Ms Lynn Boylan:

I will begin by commenting on the structure of the incoming Juncker Commission and the reservations that I and some Sinn Féin MEPs have about it. I will then speak about the two committees on which I work, as well as the work of being shadow rapporteur of reports.

Regardless of individual personalities in the incoming Commission, there is a real concern about a move to put business before people. One of the main concerns is that Mr. Juncker has moved responsibility for health technologies and medicinal products from the health unit to the area of the Internal Market and competitiveness. This is being condemned by all health non-governmental and patient organisations, and it is a worrying trend that we are putting competitiveness in the area of health outcomes before dealing with a citizen's right to health care. We are also concerned that there is no Commissioner with responsibility for sustainability, and we wrote to Mr. Juncker to demand that sustainability be made a cornerstone within his Commission, with Commissioner Vella to be assigned some sort of role dealing with sustainable development.

With regard to personalities, there are a number of Commissioner-designates about which we would have real concerns. Our concerns about Mr. Hogan are public knowledge but our committee also has reservations about Mr. Miguel Cañete, the Spanish designate. If he is successful, he will be the Commissioner responsible for energy and the environment, despite him having a 3% share in oil companies. We consider that to be a complete conflict of interest and see him as the wrong man to be representing the environment and climate change efforts. We will oppose Mr. Cañete's approval and we hope the Spanish Government will return with an alternative nominee. We also have some reservations about Mr. Jonathan Hill's links to banking and lobbying. Across Europe, Irish people and European citizens feel disconnected from the European institutions and their faith in them has dropped to an all-time low. The structure of the Juncker Commission and issues around transparency are not helping.

At a hearing recently involving the environmental committee, I challenged a Commissioner-designate, Mr. Vytenis Andriukaitis, on conflicts of interest regarding the European Food and Standards Authority.

Some 41% of people questioned across Europe have no faith in the scientists who sit on the board because of their interests in industry. We were not satisfied with the answer to it and were going to follow up by writing to the Commissioner and asking for some concrete actions he could take to deal with the transparency around EFSA. I am a full member of the Committee on the Environmental, Public Health and Food Safety, and this is how I got the opportunity to question the Commissioner designate for public health on Tuesday. I am also a substitute member of the employment and social affairs committee.

I am shadow rapporteur on the very controversial GMO report on ensuring member states have the ability to restrict GMOs on their territories. It has caused controversy and failed to reach agreement at European Council level. As shadow rapporteur and representing the GUE-NGL group, I want to ensure member states are protected with very robust laws and enabled to stop GMOs being grown on their territories. We have concerns around the Council and Commission’s position on it because one of the issues is that member states and companies are put on equal footing. Therefore a member state must request that a company does not grow GMOs on its territory. This is wrong. A democratically elected government cannot be on a level pegging with the likes of Monsanto and we object to it.

We are also concerned about the list of reasons a member state can use for opposing GMOs. The reasons are too vague and both the Commission and Council’s positions have no reference to cross-contamination or liability, which would be of particular concern for the island of Ireland. I am not sure what our Government’s position is because it is a little vague. However, the British Conservative Government is very much in favour of GMOs and has been very open about the fact that it wants GMOs to proceed. Where does that leave Northern Ireland? How can we object to it and how can farmers in the Border region stop cross-contamination of their crops? It has many implications, particularly for organic farmers retaining their organic status. We also have concerns about the legal basis of this in that the Council and Commission propose that the legal basis for the regulations will be internal market, not environment. Again, we have concerns because it puts competitiveness and internal market before environmental law.

The other report I am working on as shadow rapporteur is the one on novel foods. It also failed to reach agreement under the previous legislature, probably because of the inclusion of food from cloned animals. This has been removed from it and the novel foods report will take on board only foods from third countries, for example foods which would have been consumed in Latin America and which are coming into the European market after 1997. There are safety aspects to these foods. The novel foods report also includes nanotechnology. Many people are unaware of nanotechnology in food and it is very difficult to explain. It is about particles at a nano level that are being introduced into food. Our concern is that there is no satisfactory, scientific method for testing the safety of these products. The EU seems to be putting the cart before the horse by providing a mechanism to regulate these products to come on the market for European citizens to eat before we have a standardised procedure to assess whether the products are safe for human consumption.

The other report for which I will be rapporteur is a non-legislative report on the right to water. Members might be familiar with it as the citizens’ initiative was hailed during the Lisbon treaty as a great step in democratising the EU and bringing it back to the citizen level. We always had reservations about it because the wording in the Lisbon treaty was that the Commission would “note” any citizens’ initiative. The first initiative brought before the Commission was the right to water, which was mostly organised by the trade union movement. More than 2 million European citizens have signed up to the initiative, which asks that it be put on a legal basis that it is a human right to have access to clean drinking water. In May, the European Commission rejected the initiative on the grounds that it would tie the hands of the future legislator. We find this very disappointing. The European Parliament has always backed the initiative to make the right to water a fundamental human right. A report will go through this legislature which will, hopefully, reiterate the support of the European Parliament for citizens’ right to access to free water. I will be the rapporteur on it and the process should begin in December, all going well.

In September, a delegation from the GUE-NGL group visited Palestine on foot of the Israeli Government’s onslaught into Gaza in its operation protective edge. Given the level of EU funding that goes into the region, we felt justified in sending a delegation on a fact-finding mission to assess how much aid would be required from the EU to support the people of Palestine. Unfortunately, the Israeli Minister for Foreign Affairs rejected our request to enter Gaza. We continued with the delegation and went through the United Nations to assess the level of damage. The UN was very disappointed at the Israeli Government’s refusal to let us enter Gaza, and met us in Jerusalem. The UN has sent a clear message that it wants MEPs and politicians from member states to go to Gaza and see for themselves the damage that has been done and the war crimes that have been committed in the area. On the fact-finding mission we met members of the Knesset and the Palestinian Authority. We also met representatives of Israeli and Palestinian NGOs and victims of operation protective edge, and their message is that the world needs to stand up and take action against Israel on what it has done in Gaza.

We intend to pursue it in the European Parliament. We believe the EU could do much more. The laws are there, and must be enforced. There should be an embargo on products from Israel and the EU should demand compensation from the Israeli Government because taxpayers’ money, including Irish taxpayers’ money, has gone into providing infrastructure in Gaza which has been repeatedly destroyed on a two-yearly basis. During the most recent onslaught, the water and electrical infrastructure was completely destroyed so that Israel, once again, controls the water and electricity going into Gaza. Some 400,000 people have no access to clean water as a result of the actions of the Israeli Government. We will continue to ask the European Parliament to stand up and take action against Israel for its infringements of human rights.

Mr. Brian Hayes:

I thank the Chairman and members. It is a privilege to be here. I congratulate the Ceann Comhairle, Oireachtas Commission and the Chairman on managing to have proceedings of the House and committees live on television. There will also be a facility whereby various sessions of the European Parliament, either plenary or committee, can be viewed on the channel. It is a very welcome development.

It is important that as one of the 11 Irish MEPs elected for this State that we keep in constant discussion and engagement not just with the important Joint Committee on European Union Affairs but with the various sectoral committees. Ms Boylan, MEP, has outlined the work she is doing in her area of policy. It would be important in whatever area in which we are engaging that we would have discussion with the sectoral committees. I have a few ideas that the members might be interested in hearing.
It is an extraordinary privilege to be elected by the people of Dublin as one of the new Irish MEPs and I am very grateful to them for giving me this mandate during the next five years. As a former Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas for more than 18 years, it is important that as an Irish MEP one is in the first instance an ambassador for one's country. I regard myself as an Irish MEP first and a Fine Gael MEP second. As we have only 11 Irish MEPs, it is crucially important that people work together and we put the interest of the country before that of our political parties. That is important. We are a small country and as Mr. Jacobs said, out of the 751 members of the European Parliament, Ireland has only 11 representatives. It is important that colleagues work together for the interests of the country rather than marginal party political issues, which because of our adversarial system of politics sometimes get played out in Dáil for all sorts of reasons. The European Parliament is different, it works to a different degree and we should utilise it as 11 MEPs working together.
This is a real Parliament with real power. I have responsibility for the economic area on behalf of the Fine Gael MEPs. Some 70% of all financial regulation of all financial law across the 28 members states of the European Union is determined in co-decision making between the European Parliament and the Council. Irrespective of what happens in budgets in this country or in other countries, the great majority of law in how we organise our financial system across the eurozone and across the 29 members states as a whole is determined by the European Parliament and by the Council. It is most definitely a Parliament with real teeth and real power.
I am a member of the European People's Party, EPP, and it has 221 of the 751 MEPs. Effectively we have an informal coalition with the Social Democrats. It is sometimes ignored but it is worth saying that 70% of the Members of the newly elected Parliament come from a pro-European tradition when there is a commentary about En France Front national or UKIP or other populist neo-nationalist parties. It is sometimes ignored that the great majority of European citizens who voted last May voted for pro-European MEPs, irrespective of whether they come from the Centre Right, the Centre or the Centre Left. We need to keep that in mind.
I am a member of the Economic Affairs Committee of the Parliament, the only full Irish member on this very important committee that deals with the vast amount of financial regulation that goes through it. It takes up about 80% of my time. I will set out the issues I am working on, comment on where we need to improve our relationship with the committee and speak about some of the big issues that affect the mandate we have for the next five years.
I have a very simple view about what is coming down the tracks. I asked the Irish Permanent Representative in Brussels to rate on a scale of five to one, five being the most significant and one being the least significant, what is important for Ireland. I work on the basis that what is in important to Ireland should gain our attention as Irish MEPs. We are not just there to create legislation across the 500 million citizens across the European Union. We are also there to defend the Irish interest and the Irish position.
When I came to the European Parliament, I worked very hard to get on the ECON committee. Money markets reform is a crucial issue. Let me explain it. A third of all the money that comes into the financial services system in this country is money markets. Money markets is a kind of financial warehouse, it provides short-term funding that the banks get to improve their liquidity. The proposals put forward by Commissioner Michel Barnier, would have effectively brought to an end a third of all the moneys that are coming into Ireland, were they advanced last March and would have knocked out thousand of Irish jobs, especially in Dublin, our constituency. When I discovered the importance of this issue, I worked within my own group to ensure that I could become the lead rapporteur for that file. I acknowledge that we must resolve the problem, a liquidity problem for money markets but we must also do it in a way that does not adversely affect employment opportunities in this country. I will stand up and defend every Irish job and do so unapologetically. As the EPP rapporteur for that area, it was crucially important that I got that job.
The second area I am working on with colleagues is the economic semester. As members know country specific recommendations which come from the semester come through the Commission onto the Council and they are then made as recommendations, which the countries are asked to consider. We recently had a good example of good parliamentary engagement. The Chairman of the Finance Committee, Deputy Ciaran Lynch came to the ECON committee of the EU. He presented the view of his committee, which was very clear, that there should be a greater period of time between the Commission's recommendations and the Council's acceptance of it, so that the members of the Houses of the Oireachtas could engage on the recommendations. I am trying to get the recommendation that the Chairman of the European Affairs committee, through Deputy Lynch, as a central feature of the report that is going through my committee. It is a small but good example of why we need to engage with each other to make sure that the voice of the national parliament is not overlooked in this deliberative process.
I am involved in a monetary dialogue with the President of the ECB, Mario Draghi. Members may have seen me last week putting very clear questions to him, arguing why the ECB needs to be involved in any banking inquiry that will take place in Ireland so that the ECB's role in respect of 2000 and 2008 in the decisions that were taken are held to account in this forum, so that Irish parliamentarians can hear from the ECB. I have forcefully put that view to him.

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

Were they accepted?

Mr. Brian Hayes:

He said he would consider it when the invitation comes from the committee. I think the problem we have is that the then President of the ECB, Mr. Trichet, has said publically that he will not engage with our Parliament. It is crucially important that the current President of the ECB, Mr. Draghi and the Governing Council make it very clear that they will involve themselves with papers, documentation and the personnel who may have been involved at the time.

I have also worked hard on the question of tracker mortgages. One of the major new initiatives that the ECB is announcing at 2.30 p.m. Frankfurt time, is in term of asset backed securities. I am arguing that the ECB should use the tracker mortgages as collateral in terms of helping to get cheaper money into the Irish banks, which will help the SME sector. That is something which Mr. Draghi is looking at on foot of my recommendation.

We had an opportunity recently of visiting the European Investment Bank and I know that Sinn Féin colleagues met them as well over the summer. One of the things they are doing on the back of a proposal I put was to consider funding for infrastructural projects on social housing. This is a major issue in Dublin among my constituents. Can we get funding for social housing initiatives from the EIB in the same way we have got funding for Grangegorman and for the Luas Interconnector? They are considering that. My job on the ECON committee allows me to do these things on behalf of the country.

I will now comment on where we are falling down. I do not think we have enough colleagues involved in detail. These are complicated difficult files and we need more engagement on detail rather than on the Punch and Judy exchange that dominates our politics. We have no early warning system as to what is really important for the country. That is where we need to involve ourselves much closer with the sectoral committees.

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

Does the permanent representative not provide that services?

Mr. Brian Hayes:

Yes it does but it depends on the number of people they have there from the Department in question. We have 420 delegated Acts in my committee that we will be looking at in the next year involving secondary legislation on financial regulation. I believe there is a role for the finance committee in working with me on weeding through the files to find out what my priorities should be on their behalf.

We have 28 current files in ECON that are outstanding. Ms Boylan, MEP, spoke about some of the files she is working on. I would very much like to know the priorities of the Irish parliamentarians that I might take up. That is where our engagement needs to improve. Chairman, this is not a criticism, but we need to engage much closer with the sectoral committees, where we are leading on behalf of the people.

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

Mr. Hayes will not find disagreement from this committee.

Mr. Brian Hayes:

I am glad to hear that.

What are the big issues? We are slowly putting in place the pillar blocks for banking union. We need to get on to the jobs, investment and growth agenda. President Juncker has proposed a radical plan where €300 billion of new funding will be put into infrastructural projects in the next three years. I understand the Irish Government needs to submit its proposals to the EIB by the end of October. We should have a big discussion on that. I want to see viable proposals because the EIB, at one level, and President Juncker, at another level, are adamant that we now need to get on to the investment agenda to deal with the unacceptable level of unemployment that exists across the Union.

In regard to capital markets, 80% of funding in Europe is by way of ordinary banks. We need to move to a system where many public infrastructural projects are funded by PPPs and the private sector, a bit like in America. To do that, we need a functioning capital market system, or non-bank lending as it is called. That will be a crucial task over the mandate of this Parliament.

We also need to have a single energy market, and not just because of energy dependency from eastern to western Europe and the issues in Ukraine. We need to put the infrastructure in place; President Juncker has spoken about that.

We need to complete structural reform. Some 90% of the growth in the world in the next five years will not be in Europe. Europe is getting old, flabby and uncompetitive and we must start to provoke the innovation agenda, get research back into our industries, recreate manufacturing and look at ways to do things a bit better and at how do we get more money into SMEs. That is the real task Europe faces and that is why we must complete the structural reform agenda to ensure we come back strong.

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

I thank Mr. Hayes. All our guests made very comprehensive contributions. When the committee was in Brussels earlier this year, we had a meeting with one of the MEPs who has a specific responsibility for the Balkans region. He expressed surprise the committee was interested in the Balkans because he said no Irish MEP seemed to show any interest in it and that no Irish MEP was on the foreign affairs committee. I looked through the list of committees of which we are not members. It is not only the foreign affairs committee from which we are absent but we are also absent from the justice and home affairs committee, the women's rights and gender equality committee and the human rights committee. Will the MEPs give us their views on how we can ensure Ireland's voice is heard and that we have some representation in those types of areas in Europe?

On Monday and Tuesday, Deputy Ciarán Lynch and I attended the article 13 conference on the ongoing monitoring of the fiscal compact. It was attended by members of the national parliaments from across Europe as well as by Members of the European Parliament. What was interesting was that when it came to the discussion about the financial instruments we could use to get out of the crisis, whether eurobonds, the European redemption fund or the new PADRE system, Germany, in particular, was very much against any use of, or any expansion of instruments, which may mean additional call on German national finances. At a European level, how do the MEPs see us getting out of this crisis? How do they see the developments in regard to the renegotiation of the multi-annual financial framework going? They will remember that before their term, when it came to agreement of the multi-annual financial framework, it was agreed we would revisit this in a short number of years. What is the potential of getting more money into the system so that we kick-start growth across the economy?

In regard to working together, in the past attendance of Irish Members of the European Parliament at this committee was sporadic at best and it depended on the subject matter and the date. We changed the day of the committee meetings to a Thursday to try to accommodate MEPs, in particular Dublin MEPs, because I am sure Thursday afternoons are not a bad time for them. We would like to see better engagement for all the reasons they outlined earlier. Will they let us know what we, as a committee, can do to make it easier for them and their colleagues to attend meetings on a regular basis? Local councillors who are members of the Committee of the Regions appeared before the committee. We are trying to develop better relationships between the Committee of the Regions and the national Parliament. If we could improve our relations with MEPs, that would complete the circle. We would have European Parliament Members, national Parliament Members and local authority members speaking with each other on a regular basis, which would help to improve things. Perhaps the MEPs will comment on those issues.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have an appointment at 3 p.m. but I hope to return to the meeting. I cannot miss the opportunity to mention the fact that two of the MEPs are based in Dublin South-West and I wish them both well. Both MEPs know of the difficulties in the area, with high unemployment, in particular youth unemployment. People will expect them to deliver and come up with the goods and some ideas. Both MEPs have a huge responsibility in regard to this project. We all know of the disconnect. I agree with the Chairman in regard to the structures for meeting MEPs. Let us be honest in that it did not really work with the previous group of MEPs but I hope we can improve that. We need to look at different ways in which we can tie MEPs into this committee, whether through their attendance here, video-conferencing or otherwise. I agree with the point about MEPs working together. That is a given. MEPs on this end of the island and in the North should also work together. We come from the same island and many of the problems are the same.

Mr. Hayes did not mention that he was a member of the delegation to Iraq. I would like him to go into detail on that. It is a huge area of responsibility and people are looking for answers in that regard as well as on the bombing of ISIS locations and so on. We all accept there is a huge difficulty there among the Sunni population. Promises were made to many of the groups in that area which were not followed through by the Iraqi authorities or by the Americans. That is part of the disconnect there. I would like to hear Mr. Hayes's ideas on what he can do there.

In regard the Palestinian situation, will Ms Boylan explain to us what reasons were given for turning a delegation away? There is talk of another group from Europe trying to get into Palestine through a different route. What we saw on television horrified most people. The calls from that region are for more European intervention. They are clearly looking for the European Union and European governments to play a much more proactive role in that whole region. Does Ms Boylan have any ideas in that regard?

Some people are talking about a boycott of goods from the settlements. That is not coming from governments but from grassroots organisations and it could be effective. There was announcement the other day of more settlements going ahead in east Jerusalem and the worry is that it is more difficult to come up with a solution to the problem if there are more of these settlements, which are illegal under international law. If we allow this to go ahead, how can any Israeli Government come up with a solution which will mean removing all these people from their land? That, in itself, creates difficulties.

I am interested in Gaza, in particular, given what we have seen on television. The expression used by the Israeli army was "mowing the grass". There have been different campaigns of mowing the grass.

Are the witnesses concerned, like everyone else to whom I speak to on this, about what will arise following this latest conflict? As a country that has come out of conflict, are there lessons we can offer, not only in Palestine but in other regions around the world? I am thinking in terms of the situation in Iraq.

Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Crowe mentioned Palestine and Ms Boylan mentioned the infrastructure issue. One example referred to was the EU-funded airport which was opened in 1998 and bombed in 2001, 2009 and 2012. There was also reference to other infrastructure that has been destroyed in recent years and which has left Gaza very dependent on Israel. The EU has repeatedly funded infrastructure that Israel has subsequently destroyed during the last three operations in the Gaza Strip. In light of what goes on in the European Parliament, is it important that Israel would be held responsible and made accountable at EU level for the destruction of EU-funded infrastructure?

This is possibly being parochial but it is important. Mr. Hayes mentioned he is first and foremost an Irish MEP abroad as opposed to the Fine Gael member of the EPP and that it is important to work together in the interests of the country. As part of the programme of the Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, one of its priorities is European employment and economic growth. Italy has stated it wishes to focus on financing growth and supporting investment in sectors that are key to the future of our children such as environmental protection. Earlier this year, the environment committee supported an amendment for the necessity of an environmental impact assessment to be extended to the exploration and extraction of shale gas. That was later voted down by the European Parliament in plenary session. In terms of environmental protection and supporting investment in growth sectors, what is Mr. Hayes's opinion on fracking? I am asking that because of the decision taken this week in the North not to renew a licence for exploration. Is it important to have environmental impact assessments for projects which some people might say are beneficial in terms of making money but which could destroy landscapes or prove more detrimental to the natural environment, water and other such things in the future?

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome both Mr. Hayes and Ms Boylan and congratulate them on their election. I wish them well in their roles. They have a tighter geographical area than their colleagues representing the western region, or whatever it is called now, which is a huge geographical area. It was formerly the midlands-west region.

Mr. Jacob outlined the nomination process for Commissioners and noted that the full Commission is voted upon. It seems strange that each individual Commissioner is not voted upon. That was obviously decided by someone else. If there are objections to individual Commission candidates, how is that highlighted to the relevant person? What is the process? If the majority of people or a significant number of people have an objection to just one individual candidate, it seems strange that confirmation of the full Commission would be delayed.

The Chairman touched on the issue of committees of which there are no Irish members. As a western Deputy representing Galway West, it is of particular concern that the Committee on Regional Development will have no Irish MEP as a member. Given Ireland's concerns and ensuring Ireland's priorities are represented, how do the 11 Irish MEPs engage with that committee? Is it within their groups? Are they getting minutes of all meetings? I presume so. Have they representatives that sit in the gallery and find out exactly what is going on?

On the hearings today with Mr. Phil Hogan, which I am sure Mr. Hayes was watching at some stage, there was an attempt to scupper his nomination. This goes against the grain of all Irish MEPs working in the common interest of the country. I noted with interest that the Sinn Féin nominee objected to Mr. Hogan, as is his right, but the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland had issued a letter to Mr. Hogan congratulating him on his role and hoping that they would work together and promote common issues. There is a lot of commonality between North and South in terms of agriculture issues and it is a very important role. Will Mr. Hayes comment on that?

Ms Boylan mentioned the issue of Gaza and Senator Reilly touched on it as well. That is a very serious issue considering the conflict there. Can Ms Boylan tell the committee if there is cross-party commonality or cross-party support on the issue of EU projects being bombed by Israel? Ms Boylan's group would be focused on the issue. Are there other groups that are also focused on the issue? Will Mr. Hayes also comment on that? There was a comment by Benjamin Netanyahu some time ago that international support will be required to rebuild Gaza. That is a little hard to take, notwithstanding the right of Israel to defend itself.

On the UK referendum, I am not sure if there are many people in the UK who would be too concerned about how Ireland views the referendum. Maybe some business people would be concerned. The ordinary voter might not be too worried about what Ireland thinks about it. If there is to be renegotiation of certain aspects of the treaty, does Mr. Hayes think this will open up the possibility of other countries similarly seeking renegotiation? Does he think the fabric of the various treaties will fall apart?

On the single energy market, we are losing competitiveness to the USA. It is important we ensure we can continue to attract industry to Europe. How is this progressing? Do the witnesses think the instability in the Ukraine and the concerns about Russian gas and so forth has expedited this process? Do they have any timescale on the issue?

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

I welcome our guests and thank them for coming before the committee to give their views. I wish them well during their tenure in the European Parliament.

To what extent are the Members committed to and to what extent can they be effective in mobilising opinion within the EU towards concentrating on a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians with particular reference to the need to establish an ongoing structure whereby the aggrieved parties on whatever side could regularly bring their grievances for a hearing and with a view to replacing operations such as Operation Cast Lead or the most recent intrusions, such being the much better option?

On the financial services sector, what is the extent to which consideration is being given to a financial transactions tax? What support is there for such a tax within the European Union? Is it accepted that such a proposal would need to be universally accepted? Acceptance in one country or a group of countries would result in serious decimation of the financial services in that country or those countries. Are the implications fully recognised?

What is the extent, if any, to which Ireland's 12.5% corporation tax rate is an issue for discussion in the European Union? We have seen some misinformed and uninformed discussions of and comments on the subject that would be detrimental to our island's position in its attempt at economic recovery and as an international and central trader in the global market, having particular regard to the fact that 90% of what we produce in this country is exported and that we have had the benefit of a significant level of foreign direct investment.

To what extent do the witnesses see themselves playing a role in that debate, which has to be fair, equitable, Europe-wide and Europe-based, but also conscious of the needs of our own economy?

Jobs, investment and growth are other areas that have been mentioned and are very important. We have discussed them on numerous occasions as a committee. With interest rates at an all-time low, it must be a good time to encourage growth through investment. Job creation projects must be seen as important. In that context, would it be possible for the EU to adopt a Europe-wide policy to identify areas that lack growth and economic promotion, irrespective of country or border, with a view to stimulating investment and growth? In the first instance this policy should identify the extent to which infrastructure is required in those areas to facilitate growth. There is a general feeling that the areas of largest population throughout Europe enjoy a greater possibility of economic recovery than other areas. In this country, greater efforts have been made and greater success has been achieved in returning to some kind of growth than in most other countries within the eurozone.

The early warning system is of great importance in all aspects of European law, particularly in fiscal and economic areas. It has to be possible and should have been possible for the red light to appear on the screen a long time before we tip over the edge and find ourselves in need of financial bailouts. To what extent can the MEPs, individually and collectively, influence concentration on those areas with a view to ensuring no country in the EU finds itself in a position where economic crisis creeps up on it without an early warning system?

Certain objectives have been laid down in respect of Europe 2020. I mention specifically our own Food Harvest 2020 because 90% of what we produce is exported. That is a sizeable area of importance for us. What are the MEPs' views on both these areas?

Energy is a critical element of European infrastructure. Some parts of the EU have ready access and some do not. We are especially isolated when it comes to a reliable energy source over which we have control. To what extent do the MEPs see themselves as being in a position to play a role in developing alternative reliable energy sources, throughout the EU but in this country in particular? I would hope that this could be done through the political groupings. Going back to the old story, everyone says each country should have more influence on European policy, but with 27 or 28 member states, each country exerting more influence on European policy will beg the question of where it breaks down. Does each country recognise the need for the others' existence?

There is a huge deficiency in housing in this country, which has been growing for many years. We will find ourselves in a very serious position in a year's time. It will come up much more quickly than we think. The degree of homelessness and the threat of it is significant, in particular in the greater Dublin area but it is even worse in adjoining counties like Wicklow, Kildare and Meath. When negative equity in respect of house prices begins to recede, it is of benefit to the lending sector but has the opposite effect on the unfortunate people who are hoping to be housed. To what extent do the MEPs, individually and collectively, through Europe, encourage the early launch of some system whereby funding for that purpose can be provided? Every one of the members present, including myself, has spent a lot of time working on this issue over recent years. There is a difficulty because if something appears on the national balance sheet, it is a no-no. However, there are other ways of doing it. The positive side is that there is a reduction in annual expenditure on rent support which is permanently resolved.

There are many issues and I have no doubt that more will arise over the next years. I, like all of my colleagues present, could go on asking questions for a long time. We believe that policy in Europe can have a positive or negative impact on us. We can have a positive impact on Europe and it can have a positive impact on us. We are committed Europeans. We cannot have influence in an institution the size of the EU while saying we are only half Europeans, that we do not intend to stay here except for a short while, or that we are just visitors to see what can happen for the time being. Things do not work that way; we have to have a commitment. Our commitment will determine the outcome of the modern Europe. In the course of this Commission and this Parliament, Europe is going to see changes it has not seen before. If it does not act with commitment, the European project may waver and crack. The consequences of this for all European countries, within and outside the eurozone, will be catastrophic.

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

Deputy Durkan mentioned the range of subjects we could discuss. I had expected someone to bring up the subject of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP. This committee produced a report on TTIP a number of months ago after holding a number of hearings. The report questioned the level of transparency of the negotiations. This issue is shared by organisations throughout Ireland. We recently had a submission from Trócaire on it. I mentioned that I attended the Article 13 conference in Rome earlier in the week. One of my colleagues there described TTIP as the biggest social threat in Europe today. There are significant concerns about the TTIP proposals and what they will mean for the social market. What kind of feelings are the MEPs picking up, although they are not long in their positions, from across the political groupings at Parliament level about TTIP?

There have been a wide range of questions. I had said we would finish by 3.30 p.m., but that is probably ambitious at this stage. I suggest we take it in the same order as when we started off, beginning with Mr. Jacobs, then Ms Boylan and then Mr. Hayes. The witnesses need not feel they have to answer everything, but if there are some issues they would like to clarify or questions they would like to answer, they are welcome to do so.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

There was one question about what happens if the European Parliament does not like an individual and we do not have a vote on that individual candidate. The process is relatively informal. If there have been candidates with whom the European Parliament has not been satisfied, we have tried, working with the President of the Commission, to see if they could have portfolio reallocated or if the member state could replace that candidate. That happened in the last two Commissions that member states withdrew one or more nominees and replaced them with others. That has slowed down the process. The key question for the European Parliament is political. How many nominees have to raise problems for the Parliament to decide it does not want to vote on the Commission as whole? This is the only formal lever it has, to refuse to vote the Commission until X and Y nominees are withdrawn and replaced.

In this particular case, many questions may be asked of individual nominees and many individual problems may come up. There is a little bit of a difference, however, in that the lead candidate system has meant that the organic relationship between the President of the European Commission and the European Parliament has been closer than it has been in past nominations. I do not know how that will affect the process, but I am sure that Ms Boylan and Mr. Hayes would have views on that. It is informal.

The final thing I would mention is what happens if the Commission is confirmed and then afterwards committees or Members of the Parliament are unhappy with the performance of individual Commissioners. I do not think it will be modified this time, but in the past after each election the European Parliament has reached an agreement with the President of the Commission on a code of conduct governing relations between the Parliament and the Commission. The member states have not always liked that. One of the provisions in the agreement is that the Parliament can ask the President of the Commission to reallocate responsibility from an individual member of the Commission with whom the European Parliament is not happy. Even after the vote, there are mechanisms for the Parliament to request the President of the Commission to respond to the Parliament on that point.

Ms Lynn Boylan:

I will try to get through as many questions as possible. The first was about attendance by MEPs at this committee. It is difficult because of the days on which the committee sits. Even a Thursday afternoon is not ideal because some of us would have committee meetings. From a practical point of view, there are constituency weeks allocated which MEPs spend in their constituencies and which would be best for any MEP to attend the committee. The details of these weeks are available on the website.

This engagement is very important for us. Mr. Hayes has brought it up, not only in relation to this committee but also the sectoral committees. Sectoral committees in the Oireachtas should pay particular attention to the sectoral committees on which Irish MEPs are not represented. There is an Irish MEP on the Committee for Regional Development, Ms Martina Anderson, who is also a representative on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and I am sure she would be happy to brief the committee on her work on those two committees. It is important for the sectoral committees to flag any issues they believe need the attention of the Irish MEPs at a committee on which we are not represented. I invite committees to send an e-mail to flag it with us and we can monitor it. It is impossible to monitor the minutes of all the committees. Mr. Hayes can confirm that the number of e-mails one receives just from one's own committees is phenomenal. Therefore it would be on the basis of Deputies keeping an eye on the relevant portfolios and flagging issues with us. Equally, we can flag important issues at our committees with Deputies.

There were a number of questions on the Palestine issue. Deputy Crowe asked about the reasons given to refuse the delegation admission to Gaza. When we first requested permission, the Israeli Foreign Minister said that they were only allowing access to people who were delivering aid to Gaza. We appealed that on the basis that the European Union provides a significant amount of aid to the region and that to best assess what aid was required, MEPs had to go and find out that information first-hand. That appeal was again refused on the basis that we were not delivering immediate aid to the region. During our trip we went to the Red Crescent centre in Jerusalem and we saw two full warehouses of immediate aid equipment, including medical equipment, antibiotics, wheelchairs and crutches. The Red Crescent was awaiting permission from Israel to bring that immediate aid into Gaza. We therefore find the actions of the Israeli Foreign Minister repulsive because he used an excuse not to allow us in when they were actually also stopping immediate aid going to the area. We do not believe that excuse and we intend in the GUE-NGL group to appeal this decision to the Israeli Government every month on the grounds that we want access to Gaza in order that we can best represent European taxpayers' money going into the area.

Senator Reilly asked about taxpayers' money being spent on infrastructure which seems to be completely destroyed every two years with no consequences for Israel in terms of reimbursing the European Union for the destruction of this infrastructure. A resolution was brought to the floor of the plenary session of the European Parliament on 17 September demanding reparations from Israel for the EU-funded projects destroyed during repeated aggression in Gaza and the West Bank. This was, regrettably, voted down. It seems MEPs are quite happy to waste Irish and European taxpayers' money by rebuilding over and over again. This is something we will keep on the agenda.

The boycott seems to be having some success, especially with G4S, the security company. G4S has come under great pressure on this issue and many member states have pulled contracts with it. I hope the Irish Government would consider doing the same because I know that G4S is tendering for contracts in the Department of Social Protection. G4S has said it will not renew its contract with Israel in 2017 because of the pressure it has come under, so the boycott campaign is having an effect.

On the peace process, we felt when we were out there that one needs a partner to peace. We know from our experience in the North that both sides must be willing to engage and it appears the Israeli Government is not prepared to engage in a peace process at the moment. The only way it will be forced to the table to negotiate is if it comes under intense pressure from the international community. The European Union needs to step up to the plate on this by insisting that Israel ends the disproportionate aggression against the Palestinian people.

There was also a question on youth unemployment and the Youth Guarantee. The previous Commissioner gave a presentation on this topic to the plenary session in September. There is a great deal of concern that it is failing in its purpose in that member states are not drawing down the money as expected. We have put forward a proposal to have a full review of the Youth Guarantee scheme, paying particular attention to the programme countries, including Ireland, because we believe the Youth Guarantee was grossly underfunded from the start and did not have achievable goals. We must also monitor how individual member states are monitoring the Youth Guarantee. Certainly in Ireland we have concerns that there was no provision for facilitating single parents to get back into the workplace, for example, and a large number of them are unemployed. There was no facility either for the 10,000 people with disabilities to access the Youth Guarantee. We are hopeful that initiative will be taken up by the Committee for Employment and Social Affairs, of which I am a member, and I would be happy to report back to this committee on that.

On TTIP and the other question Senator Reilly asked about fracking, we have very serious concerns about the transatlantic trade agreement. Going on the feelings that were evident when this was debated in the plenary session two weeks ago, there is much concern within the groups about the lack of transparency in the negotiations. We have serious concerns about the investor state dispute settlement mechanism which allows industry to bring a government to court. We will oppose that at any level if it is part of the trade agreement. It comes into play in terms of fracking, because American fracking companies have sued the Canadian Government, so we want to ensure there are robust legal protections for member states if they want to oppose fracking and we want to ensure they would be entitled to do so. As I highlighted regarding GMOs, we cannot allow a situation where a democratic government wants to oppose something happening on its territory and industry can take it to court on the basis of competitiveness. It cannot be tolerated.

Regarding some of the other questions Deputy Kyne raised about the Commissioner, we stand over our objection to Phil Hogan.

We think he is the wrong man for the job. I am putting on the green jersey. We heard earlier that Jean-Claude Juncker failed to meet the 40% target he set for female Commissioners. The Irish Government really missed a trick in this regard. Mairéad McGuinness is over there. While I disagree with her politics, I accept that she is absolutely competent. Unlike Phil Hogan, there is no controversy around her. She knows the agriculture brief inside out. She is very familiar with the institutions. We think Ireland missed a trick on this occasion. The number of female Commissioners has not increased under Jean-Claude Juncker. We have the same number of female Commissioners that we had in the past. We have concerns. Deputy Durkan spoke about the housing crisis. I remind him that Phil Hogan cut the funding for social housing by 90% during his term in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

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

That can be discussed in Europe, but not in here.

Ms Lynn Boylan:

Yes.

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

It is a discussion that I would be delighted to facilitate at any time.

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

Not in here.

Ms Lynn Boylan:

We would say that the housing crisis was exacerbated by the former Minister. We will have to disagree on that. We certainly raised the issue of the funding of social housing when we met officials from the European Investment Bank. We are investigating the very good examples they gave us of how that was done in Britain. Sinn Féin has proposed the use of arm's-length companies to enable local authorities to access funding and thereby be in a position to invest in social housing. When we meet the officials in question, we also raised the possibility of an increase in the European Investment Bank ratio from 50:50 to a lending ratio of 75:25 for the purposes of social housing or job creation. We were told that there is no legal impediment to that. We will pursue that possibility. We believe the lending capacity of the European Investment Bank should be increased because its current capacity is too small.

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

It was increased from €60 billion to €80 billion a couple of years ago.

Ms Lynn Boylan:

Yes, but that is a pittance compared with what has been pumped into the banks.

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

When we met them last year, we had a discussion in a similar vein.

Ms Lynn Boylan:

We are suggesting it could be much more significantly increased. I think I have touched on most of the questions that have come up.

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

I thank Ms Boylan.

Mr. Brian Hayes:

I will begin by responding to the Chairman's remarks. There are 24 committees. As there are just 11 of us, we are not going to be on every committee. In that context, I return to my initial point that there could be more co-ordination between the 11 of us. That is something I would like to explore with all my colleagues, leaving party politics outside for a moment. There is more work we can do. Three or four members of our 11-strong delegation are on one committee, but we have no one on eight committees. There is an issue there. I am also on the Committee on Development as a substitute member. Obviously, there is a kind of ying-yang balance between economics and development. They are both connected, given what we need to see in terms of trade opportunities between the developing world and Europe, especially in light of the huge sums of money the European taxpayer is putting into humanitarian relief across the world.

I would like to set out the key issue with regard to investment. Of course we need investment, but someone has to pony up the money. Investment in Ireland decreased by 20%, or one fifth, from the top of the crisis in 2008 to the bottom of the crisis now. The question of whether this is the bottom of the crisis is an open one. That is private consumption. People talk about public sector money, but the real money that drives the economy is private sector money. Of course capital money here, there and everywhere makes some difference. Private sector money is the real money that encourages investment in small and medium-sized enterprises. Mario Draghi has made the point that we need to return to the investment agenda.

I came across a very interesting paper by Daniel Gros at a preliminary meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs the other day. He made the point that such a wall of money has never before been put into the banks, or made optional to the banks, without the banks lending it. He says that when something similar happened in the 1930s, there was a deflationary period for a decade after. People psychologically remembered the crash in their own private lives and in their countries' lives. They deleveraged, they paid down their loans and they decided not to take on more debt. I think Europe is in a similar spiral right now.

There is a simplistic top-of-the-head attitude that we need to get more money into the system, even though we have never had more money in the system. There is a psychological problem with drawing down that money. Some of the banks have said they are making money available, but it is not being drawn down. When a small businessman who has three or four people working for him is told there is money available, he has to decide whether to do it now or to wait. He might choose to pay down his existing debts, such as credit card debt. That is the psychological problem Europe is in right now, largely because it took us so long to get out of the crisis. We have had to retrofit the whole system of banking union. We have had to put a resolution system in place. We have finally got a sensible president of the ECB, following the departure of a rather single-minded and unsensible person.

The new President of the ECB has done many things. He has put the three-year money at 1%. He has promised countries which cannot get back to the markets that he will keep buying their bonds, if they are unable to do so, as long as they can get two ten-year papers away. He has announced that up to €400 billion in asset-backed securities will be made available to the banks of Europe. How much of that money will get into the real economy? That is the question. Something interesting happened when he came out with his proposal. Europe is virtually in a period of quantitative easing at present. I will explain the difference between what the Federal Reserve in the US is doing and what the ECB is doing in terms of monetary policy. When the Federal Reserve has $100 billion to put into the system, it says to the banks: "Here it is; take it." The difference between what Mario Draghi is doing now and what Mr. Wagner and others used to do is that they are expecting the banks to apply for this.

The big impediment to investment, whether that involves the off-balance sheet bond buying that the Germans are in favour of or the straight investment of ECB money, is the upcoming stress tests. I have been a public critic of the new supervisory mechanism. I think it is holding back growth. At a time when Europe needs investment of private sector money into the banks to get the lending and the multiplier effect going again, it is crazy that the stress tests have been put off on three separate occasions. They were supposed to be done at the start of this year and then they were supposed to take place in March. When I asked about the matter at last week's meeting of the European Parliament Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I was told they will definitely be done by the end of October. If one gives a huge sum of money to the banks to recapitalise them and if they know this test is coming down the line, it should not be a surprise if they hold on to the money. We have created a monster through these stress tests, because it is taking the real economy a significant length of time to get this money.

This is not going to be an easy nut to crack. There are no simplistic solutions to this. The reputation of our country has improved dramatically. If one believes the GDP figures, our country has the potential to hit 5% growth this year. Every 1% of GDP growth leads to €1.6 billion in additional money coming in. The big prize for Ireland goes back to the point made by Deputy Durkan. It is not just about Ireland getting something from Europe. There are many things we need to get. It is also about telling Europe how we have managed to come through this awful period in our economic history. Average earnings in Ireland are €33,000. Average earnings in Portugal are €16,000. Average earnings in Greece are approximately €10,000. They cannot be compared.

The point I am making is there are things we can do now on foot of some extraordinary experiences. For example, the public sector unions have accepted the kind of dramatic reduction led by the Minister, Deputy Howlin. We have transformed the public sector unions. This country has a much more efficient public sector than the great majority of EU countries. I know that because I see a lot of Belgium these days. We have a much more efficient public sector. Our public sector led us through this crisis. It was prepared to take one third of all the adjustments. We have learning on procurement to explain to similarly sized EU countries.

I think the way out of this for Ireland is to benchmark ourselves against similarly sized countries in Europe like Denmark and Belgium. We should examine how they are doing by comparison with us. That is how we can negotiate. There is a great deal to be learning about the Irish experience. When our colleagues speak of Ireland now, and this is not a kind of German-centric view, they do so in a very different way from how they did four or five years ago because of what we have come through. Many people in Europe have a great deal to learn from us. It is not just about us taking something; it is about us giving something back. That is a very strong experience.

The investment issue is very significant. It is going to be led by the private sector. It is not going to be done by the public sector alone. As we are in a monetary union and therefore cannot change our interest rates, we need to foster a productive and competitive environment. We have gone up in the competitiveness stakes in recent years. Wage price inflation is a real issue now. The unit labour price has come down in Ireland. It is a much more competitive place in which to locate jobs. The foreign direct investment sector is doing very well now. We have a very good selling point in our country. Ireland is a highly skilled, deleveraged and privatised country. Ireland is much more northern European than southern European in its feel and its composure.

We have to use what we have come through to our advantage. I think there is a great deal of learning on all sides. I am not going to discuss what happened today at the hearings when Phil Hogan faced questioning. It is there for everybody to see. I think Commission Hogan will be really good. It is an example of the standing we now have that President Juncker asked an Irishman to take on this crucially important task. The hearings speak for themselves.
Deputy Kyne asked a really important question on the issue of the UK referendum. I have taken a great interest in this, and members may have seen the articles that were published in the newspapers. I recently spoke at the British-Irish Association in Oxford on this issue. I think we can be a bridge of interpretation between now and 2017, should there be a referendum. In a recent speech I said the genie is out of the bottle, whether the Conservative Party or the Labour Party win the next election there will be a referendum at some point in the United Kingdom. I think that is good. My personal view is that the sooner it happens the better. That is not the view of the Government, but my personal view. It will force the British to renegotiate a list of things that they believe is important. We are an English-speaking country and we understand where the British are coming from, we have an opportunity of being a bridge of interpretation because there is goodwill in Europe to making sure that the British remain in Europe. That is in Ireland's interest.
It is in Europe's interest that Britain is at the heart of the European Union and I think they need to resolve their issues. It will be a once in a generation referendum. The British Labour Party tells us that it would only have a referendum based on future treaty change. At some point there will be a treaty change, but I cannot say when it will be, hopefully not soon. It is inevitable that there will be a referendum and it is better that it is done with their support and that we do it together. As I said in my recent speech, we can be a bridge of interpretation to try to help the British to resolve that issue and equally that the continental Europeans can do likewise.
Senator Reilly raised the issue of fracking. I agree with her position and I think it is right and prudent that the Government would take its time and that we do not go in helter skelter in our response. I fundamentally agree with an impact assessment. The Senator is absolutely right on that. We have a problem. The problem is that the cost of energy in the United States is a third lower than across Europe. One of the reasons that their manufacturing base is powering ahead in the past number of years is because they have found this alternative form of energy called fracking. It is not all to do with that. We have to weigh up all the issues but I think the Government is correct in taking its time on this issue and putting forward the arguments from an environmental perspective. We have too much to lose. I am very proud that the tourism product, be it in Dublin or elsewhere, is something we should be very proud of, North and South. We should do it on that basis.
I have said publicly that the response of the Israelis to Gaza has been totally disproportionate to what came from the other side. We have a ceasefire now and it is very important that the ceasefire holds and that the international community works hard and persuades all of the parties to resolve this issue and that the European taxpayer is not left in hock again. Some €700 million has been spent by the European taxpayer in the past decade rebuilding Gaza. It is a dreadful and appalling waste. In these circumstances children are not in school today. The European Union needs to speak with one voice. That is difficult as the Chairman knows because of the realities of foreign policy in the Union.
Ireland has an unique role to play and I commend the role of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Flanagan, and others who have taken a fair approach to the issue. Ultimately the two-state solution is the solution that we all need to back and support. We know from our own conflict that it is only when the bombs stop and people are not being murdered that space is created for politicians to resolve the issue in a meaningful and impartial way. I would like to see this happen.
Deputy Crowe asked about Iraq. I am soon to become the vice president of the EU Iraqi delegation. It is a part of the world the EU will invest in very strongly. I recently met the representatives of the Kurdish community and heard about what they have gone through under the terrible terrorist Isis threat. We now have a new unity Government in Iraq. I said recently in Parliament, and I stand over that speech, that we have an opportunity of involving Iran in a way to help resolve this issue in the region. I think the Iranians can be a force for good. I passionately believe that the threat that Isis poses is not just a threat to Iraq and especially to northern Iraq but right across the region. We need to encourage the Iranian position and use it as a way of a new détente, as I described it in Parliament so that the Americans and Europeans can resolve their difficulties with Iran. This is something that I have worked towards as a member of the committee.
I apologise that I have not answered all the questions but I think I have given a flavour of my work.

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

I thank all our guests for attending this meeting. It has been a very informative and valuable meeting. I think it has given us a flavour of not just the work that the MEPs are currently doing but their priorities for the coming term.

I thank Mr. Francis Jacobs for putting a context to today's discussions. I hope that we will see the witnesses on a regular basis. We will certainly take on board the points made on the constituency. We can try to ensure that when it comes to planning our meeting around that period, that we have something that maybe of interest to MEPs.

I thank them for attending today and we wish the very best for the remainder of their term.