Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish all members good luck, health and happiness in 2017 and thank them for their committed work on the committee.

Today we will engage with Mr. Gerry Kiely from the European Commission Representation in Ireland. I welcome him on behalf of the joint committee. He was appointed head of representation last year.

For the information of members, two European Commissioners will visit Leinster House this month. Commissioner Moscovici who is responsible for economic and financial affairs, taxation and customs matters will be here on 24 January, while Commissioner Vestager who is responsible for competition matters will visit on 31 January. Both will appear before the Joint Committee on Finance to discuss matters within their remit. The Houses are involved in the work of the European Commission. Today the committee will consider the European Commission's annual work programme which sets out the Commmission's legislative and policy agenda for the year ahead. It is entitled, Delivering a Europe that Protects, Empowers and Defends. It sets out several new initiatives, as well as continuing the process of the Juncker Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme REFIT initiative.

I remind members 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, either 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 the committee. If, however, they are directed by it 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 or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Mr. Kiely to make his opening remarks. I will then invite my colleagues to put questions to him. I thank Mr. Kiely for taking time out of his busy schedule to be here. It is very much appreciated.

Mr. Gerry Kiely:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for inviting me. I am very happy to be here, given the nature of the activities of the committee, as well as ours. I hope we will have a lot in common and that there will be a lot of co-operation in the future. I have only been in the position since last October, having spent almost 30 years working in the European Commission, mainly in the area of agriculture. I have also worked in Washington DC. This is a new scene for me.

I have been asked to talk about the Commission's work programme for 2017 and the role and activities of the European Commission Representation in Ireland. For the first two years of this Commission the European Union has been in a challenging situation, facing terrorism, migration, continuing economic instability and the Brexit question. There have been many issues outside EU policy which have influenced the work of the Commission and the European Union. Throughout, however, the Commission has remained a source of resilience, stability and forward momentum. It is adamant that it is only by moving forward and being decisive that the European Union can meet the concerns of the citizen. That is exactly what the Commission is doing and will continue to do.

As committee members know, every year the Commission adopts a work programme setting out the list of actions it will take in the following 12 months. The work programme informs the public and the co-legislators of our political commitment to present new initiatives, withdraw pending proposals and review existing EU legislation. It does not cover the ongoing work of the Commission in its role as guardian of the treaties or in enforcing existing legislation, or the regular initiatives it adopts every year. In practice that is what most Commission officials work at day to day.

The Commission's work programme for 2017 is entitled, Delivering a Europe that Protects, Empowers and Defends. At the start of the new year it confirmed that it would devote all its efforts to implementing the work programme which was focused squarely on delivery of the ten priorities outlined in the Juncker Commission's political guidelines of July 2014 in order to address the biggest challenges facing Europeans. In spite of these new issues and challenges, President Juncker and the Commission are adamant that the ten priorities stand unchanged and will be delivered on, but that does not mean that many other issues will not be addressed, as they were last year and the year before.

The work programme for this year proposes 21 key initiatives, as well as a further 18 REFIT proposals to improve the quality of existing EU legislation and ensure our rules are fit for purpose.

To ensure a focus on delivery, the Commission work programme also identifies 34 priority pending proposals we have made in the past two years where swift adoption by the Parliament and Council can make a tangible impact on the ground. Both the European Parliament and European Council have further agreed to accelerate work on a number of issues in the joint declaration of the EU’s legislative priorities in 2017 signed by all three EU institutions on 13 December 2016. The pace at which decisions are made has been a cause for criticism of the EU in the past. While there are many urgent issues, it takes a long time for decisions to be made. However, there are good reasons for decisions taking a long time to be made, including the fact that different EU institutions have a role to play, the complexity of the issues and the magnitude of getting it wrong in terms of the potential impact on EU citizens. Decision making takes a long time but there is a commitment on the part of the institutions that we will move faster in the future and reach decisions on a more expeditious basis. With the priorities now set, we will be focusing on delivery and ensuring that all member states make good on their commitments. As President Juncker said in his September 2016 state of the Union address, “Europeans want common decisions followed by swift and efficient implementation”. As the EU heads from Bratislava to Rome, this is what it needs to deliver collectively.

The first, which is the primary priority of President Juncker and this Commission, is to boost jobs, growth and investment. We are proposing a youth initiative, an action plan on the implementation of the circular economy and a new multi-annual financial framework. This also includes a proposal for the European Solidarity Corps. Youth unemployment and employment has been a big issue for this Commission. While all countries in the EU are making headway and the EU as a whole is making substantial headway on the level of employment and youth unemployment is declining, nevertheless it remains a problem. The European Commission has been addressing it with the member states through the youth initiative, which has involved about 9 million young people who were unemployed. Those young people have gone into education, taken up apprenticeship training and so forth. We have about €6.4 billion in the EU budget for 2017 aimed specifically at youth employment. Committee members may be aware that we recently launched what is called the European Solidarity Corps, which is a European framework for young people to volunteer. It can also be a form of employment for young people in charitable organisations. Youth unemployment is a big issue and it is considered a priority by the Commission, Council and Parliament.

We will present ideas for the reform of the EU 27 and the strengthening of the Economic and Monetary Union. We will also propose a European pillar of social rights. One hears many criticisms of the EU today to the effect that it is only benefitting big business and that there is very little consideration given to social issues. In fact, if people analysed the situation, they would see that most of the social protection that exists today in member states has emanated from the EU over many years. That does not mean that we will stop but most of the work on social protection has been done already by the EU. Nevertheless, the Commission is looking at addressing social questions further during the year ahead.

We will continue to pursue a security union to fight terrorism and will align the rules on the protection of personal data and privacy. We will deliver on the European agenda on migration. There has been much criticism of the EU's position on migration over the last few years. People saw the catastrophe as it was but failed to appreciate the challenges posed. We have seen the greatest movement of people since the Second World War. It is important, in this context, to separate the Commission from the EU as a whole. The Commission has been well ahead of the curve in terms of what it believes should be done but it was not always possible to deliver. Equally, it was not always possible for national governments to deliver in their own countries for domestic political reasons. That said, an awful lot has been done, considering the magnitude of the problem. There are some indications that things are beginning to settle down and get under control. The European Union spent something like €15 billion in the last 12 to 15 months on migration and something in the order of €7 billion has been allocated in the 2017 budget for migration. I am not saying that money can solve the problem but it does help and is a good starting point.

We also want to strengthen Europe’s role as a global actor. In that context, we will present a European defence action plan, including a European defence fund, and the Commission and the High Representative will adopt an EU strategy for Syria and implement the EU global strategy and the Africa-EU partnership. On the defence action plan, much has been written to the effect that this represents a proposal for a European army but nobody has mentioned the question of a European army. The defence action plan is about getting co-operation between the defence forces of the 27 member states. To give an example, the combined expenditure by the 27 member states on defence is €200 billion per year while the expenditure by the US on defence is €500 billion per year. However, the EU member states combined only have something of the order of 15% of the US output. It is inefficient, basically. What we are proposing is more co-operation, more common procurement and more interoperability so that armies can co-operate and operate better together when the need arises. The need does arise because many member states are involved in peacekeeping missions in different countries and it is important that they are able to co-operate better in every sense, in terms of the weapons used and so forth.

We will also adapt existing laws to the Treaty provisions on delegated and implementing Acts and will assess the democratic legitimacy of existing procedures for adopting certain secondary EU Acts. In addition to this, the regulatory fitness and performance programme, REFIT, reviews will update and improve existing legislation so it continues to achieve its objectives effectively and without undue burdens. In setting our priorities, we have taken particular account of the 22 opinions delivered by the REFIT platform, the newly-created independent panel of experts which reviews existing legislation and draws on citizens’ and stakeholders’ suggestions for reducing the administrative and financial burden of EU law. In parallel to this work programme, we are publishing a scoreboard which sets out in detail the follow-up to the REFIT platform opinions and the state of play on 231 initiatives for simplifying and reducing administrative burdens in existing legislation. This year we are proposing 19 withdrawals of pending legislative proposals which have become outdated and we will repeal 16 pieces of existing legislation which have become obsolete.

We will also step up our efforts on the enforcement agenda across a range of policy areas, including the Single Market and the environment, because even the best law is useless unless it delivers real results on the ground.

This year’s programme is fully aligned with the priorities identified by the 27 EU Heads of State and Government in Bratislava, and includes proposals which will contribute to the long-term vision of the European Union ahead of the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome in March 2017. The Commission will set out its vision for the long term in a White Paper to be published in March 2017. However, just as important as the new initiatives set out this year is our continued work with the European Parliament and Council to reach agreement on the ambitious proposals which have already been made in the Commission’s first two years in office. Delivering agreement on these proposals will be a priority in the next year.

In all this, I would like to emphasise the role of national parliaments in the process. The Juncker Commission has been clear from the very beginning on the need to deepen the existing political dialogue with national parliaments. Personally, I look forward to continuing to work with this committee. It has undertaken very valuable work across a range of European issues, and I look forward to building on the close co-operation it had with my predecessor.

Let me say a few words about the role of the representation. The European Commission, as the executive body of the EU, represents the common interests of all Europeans. Apart from its main presence in Brussels and Luxembourg, the Commission also has representations in all 28 member state capitals, as well as regional offices in the larger member states. This network of 37 national and regional representations has the same role and engages in the same activities in every member state. The representations are the Commission’s eyes, ears and voice on the ground in all member states. They interact with national authorities and stakeholders and inform the media and the public about EU policies. The representations report to the Commission’s headquarters on significant developments in the member states.

Our activities fall under a certain number of different headings. On the political side, we represent the Commission's interests in the member states, but also follow discussions on Europe in a member state and provide political intelligence about this to headquarters, in order to keep the Commission well informed about latest developments. On press, we engage with the national and regional press and media to inform them about the initiatives and views of the Commission. This also involves social media activities. On public communication, we inform and engage with civil society organisations, and also directly with citizens, on all things related to the EU. Not just informing them, but also entering into dialogue and debate with a view to clarifying the facts and figures related to the EU. On economic governance, we engage and interact with member states and stakeholders in member states on issues and developments related to the European semester and our current mechanism of economic and budgetary surveillance. On protocol, we prepare and manage the visits of European Commissioners and other high-level EU officials to member states in all aspects, ranging from political contacts to citizens dialogues to press work. As the Chairman mentioned, we will have visits from Commissioner Moscovici and Commissioner Vestager, who will be here later this month.

We also engage with citizens, through our citizens dialogues. This is not a new policy, but it is a reinforced policy where the Commission wants to have more citizen's dialogues. We have had approximately 120 to date across the EU. We have had some in Ireland, and we hope that we will have further dialogues with citizens in future.

We also have 500 EU information centres throughout the 28 member states, called Europe Direct centres. We have ten of them in Ireland. Through this direct and local provision of EU information we try to engage with citizens on EU affairs of concern to them. The representation will be organising specific events, such as Europe Day in May, which this year will be focused on the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. In March we will also have what is called a model EU Council event involving secondary schools from all around the country, re-enacting a Council meeting and discussing the merits of free trade agreements.

During late May we expect to be presenting our annual country specific recommendations to member states, and will organise an event around this topic with partners and stakeholders to give them a first-hand insight into the Commission’s thinking. These are but a few examples of the type of activity we carry out here. We will, of course, be engaging closely with the Oireachtas and the Government during 2017 on the main issues of concern to Ireland.

Since the beginning of the Juncker Commission in 2014, heads of representations are appointed by the President and are his political representatives in the member state to which they are posted. This is a big change in function and status compared to when EEC representations started off six decades ago as information centres. This reflects the changing role of the Commission as it has evolved over the past decades, as well as the very political focus of the Juncker Commission itself.

On behalf the European Commission I look forward to working closely with the Houses and members of the committee during the course of 2017 on EU affairs. At a time of volatility in Europe and the world, it is important that we work together as closely and as clearly as possible. Bratislava is the beginning of a process which must see concrete steps taken on the issues which unite us. The lessons of the crises of past years are clear. We cannot leave our major projects only half-built for decades. A test will always come sooner or later, and a systemic problem cannot be addressed with a last-minute quick fix.

Looking ahead to Rome and our 60th Anniversary, we have work to achieve and we have a vision to set out. First, we must deliver on the positive agenda set out in the 2016 state of the union address, which inspires the Commission’s 2017 work programme. The Commission is tabling all the promised proposals, and counts on the European Parliament and the Council to advance with the necessary legislative framework.

Neale Richmond (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Kiely for his presentation. I am not going to mention Brexit directly, because I am assuming and hoping my colleagues might, but there is something I want to look at. Mr. Kiely mentioned something on which Brexit will undoubtedly have a massive impact, which is priority six in regard to trade. That focuses on the EU-US trade deal. Following President-elect Trump's inauguration, I am absolutely certain that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, will be dead in the water, and I say that very reluctantly as someone who was an outspoken supporter of TTIP. I know that is not always the most popular thing to say. I fear that having an EU-US trade deal as a priority with the new President is no longer a viable position. I do not despair, however. The EU negotiated a solid deal with Canada through the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA. I think there is also massive potential for new trade deals, particularly in Asia, and I would like that to be fed back to the Commission. I know Commissioner Hogan undertook a serious study and information tour in places like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. Obviously, there is competition there, and there are concerns, but if we take the model of the EU-South Korea trade deal and apply that to other Asian markets, and improve on existing trade deals, I think there is potential in the short term to negotiate real, substantial trade deals with those countries rather than focusing on TTIP, which I think is at the 15th or 16th round of negotiation, and is the third or fourth attempt to actually get a trade deal.

In regard to Mr. Kiely's work in Ireland, it is a massive challenge. As someone who is pro-Europe, lived in Brussels and worked in the Parliament, there is nothing I could say that could ever be construed as eurosceptic. However, we are facing into a massive challenge of selling and sustaining the European Union. Brexit has forced this. The eurosceptics have actually won one for once, and we can no longer be complacent. I fear there is a particular mindset, not necessarily within the Commission but definitely within the pro-European brigade in Ireland. This is maybe is not necessarily from my generation, but perhaps my generation is taking for granted the very many positive things that we have experienced, such as free movement, free travel, free trade, the right to work and the right to various social services. The Commission could play a more central role in reviving the pro-European narrative in Ireland. Going back to the halcyon days of the 1970s and 1980s, we had great figures like Garret FitzGerald and Paddy Hillery leading the way. We need a return to that, because it is far too easy to knock the European Union and the European process. I would really like to see greater support and greater emphasis given to the individuals and the bodies. I would also like to see pressure put on individuals and bodies to actually come out and bat for Europe, and bat for the idea. Rather than having a cut against Brussels and the faceless elites, people should actually say that they got to go on holidays to Spain, spend their money there very easily, that they got sick, were able to see the doctor there for no fee and that they get that because of Europe. Not enough people take that into account now, and I think that is the big challenge.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Kiely for outlining the Commission's work programme and for giving us some information as to the role of the Irish representation here. I would like to ask a question about agriculture, given Mr. Kiely's background in that area, but unfortunately it is not of much interest to my constituents in Dublin Bay North.

The Brexit vote on 23 June has taken place and there is talk of increased populism in Europe, of a swing to the hard right and so on. Has the Commission assessed the vote in the United Kingdom? Obviously everybody now agrees that immigration played a huge role in the outcome of the vote, but I am sure there are other issues as well. Some were just mentioned such as, for example, the delay in getting decisions and implementing decisions by the European Union. I would also say the Commission has a communications problem. Citizens sometimes feel they are being talked down to or talked at, rather than being communicated with. Has the Commission analysed the vote in the UK either officially or otherwise? Has it come to conclusions about how the EU should do things differently and so forth? A very definite message was delivered and I think this trend can be discerned throughout the states of the European Union.

The stated aims and objectives are laudable. In particular, the first one to boost jobs, growth and investment is probably the most important of all as far as the citizens are concerned. I agree with Mr. Kiely's comments about social Europe and so on. As an example, it was mentioned that the Commission representation here in Ireland would report on significant developments to the Commission. In the last two days, there has been a lot of discussion and debate following the speech from the Prime Minister of the UK yesterday. Would communicating the Irish reaction to the Prime Minister's speech, both in the Dáil yesterday and today and so forth, be particularly high on the agenda? In this committee, we have said it is very important that the special position of Ireland arising from the vote should be considered in the negotiations. All our efforts are to try to get that message across to our European colleagues. What role does the European Commission Representation in Ireland play in that regard?

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Haughey and call Deputy Crowe.

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

Go raibh maith agat. I welcome Mr. Kiely.

I presume Mr. Kiely is aware that Sinn Féin MEPs and other Irish MEPs met with the European Commission's chief negotiator on Brexit, Michel Barnier, on Tuesday. Our MEPs impressed upon Mr. Barnier the potentially grave implications that Brexit holds for Ireland and in particular, the challenges faced by the North of Ireland. It is being dragged out of the EU against the democratically-expressed wishes of the people there. We made the case for the North to have special designated status within the EU as a democratic imperative and the importance of a transnational EU deal for Ireland in advance of Brexit to protect the interests of Irish citizens' business, particularly in the Border regions. Is there awareness or concern in the Commission on the implications that Brexit will have for Ireland? I have heard Mr. Barnier talking about his own experience with the peace process, so he has some awareness. Is there awareness across the Commission that we are the country that probably will experience the greatest impact in respect of cross-border trade and so on?

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, and Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, were mentioned by one of my colleagues here. I am sure Mr. Kiely is aware that Sinn Féin had a different view on the TTIP and CETA agreements. We see them as a new generation of free trade agreements that move far beyond the lowering of tariffs or free movement of goods and which look to attack and undermine the sovereignty of national parliaments by interfering in national regulation of trade. Shared concerns were expressed by non-government organisations and civil society consumer groups about the weak protections in CETA for the environment, workers' rights, public health, food safety and public procurement and in particular on the impact of the investment court system. Many of us can understand why major corporations are in favour of these agreements but I argue they are not designed for economies like Ireland and would do serious damage to our agrifood industry.

I am appalled at the fact that it seemed to be rammed through. There is considerable secrecy surrounding the two negotiations. I have been talking to MEPs and they say that if one wants to read about TTIP, one is brought into a room without being allowed to bring a mobile phone and one cannot quote directly from a document. What is the issue with the secrecy around that? Since Mr. Kiely is talking in terms of the national dialogue and citizens' dialogue, has the intense secrecy surrounding these deals come up as a concern? That feeds into the concerns many citizens would have about it. Members have never really had a discussion on CETA in this Parliament. Committees had no intense discussion on it. There was a view that it was trade and it had to be good. None of the implications for farmers or citizens or anyone else were taken into account. Why must these things be railroaded through?

As for the issue of water, Lynn Boylan, MEP who represents Dublin, repeatedly called out the European Commission for its continued mixed messages and double dealing regarding politically sensitive types of water charges. At one stage, Commissioner Vella's water unit in the Commission confirmed in e-mails to separate queries from both Lynn Boylan, MEP and Marian Harkin, MEP that Ireland could in fact opt to not charge for water, as is permitted in the Water Framework Directive. Yet soon after that, there were leaked documents that said the established practice was to have the polluter pay and so on. It remains crystal clear that Ireland's established practice to recover costs was through general taxation. Would Mr. Kiely not agree that at a time when disengagement between Irish citizens and European citizens with the Brussels elite is at its highest, it is incredibly foolish for the European Commission to stick its nose into domestic politics when it is fully aware that a review into water charges is ongoing? We are getting mixed messages.

One priority mentioned in respect of the work programme was migration. It has been expressed here and at the foreign affairs committee that there is huge concern about the migrations to the EU from Turkey. How, under any criteria, can the European Commission or any European body designate Turkey as a safe country of origin? How can a country that regularly violates civil rights and human rights of its own citizens and others - we are practically in the middle of a civil war within Turkey - be considered to be a safe country of origin? Even more worrying are the most recently developed plans to copy this model and negotiate similar deals with countries such as Libya, a failed state, and Mali. Some would state the latter is not a failed state but I would argue it is has. It is inconceivable that this would be done. We would be talking in terms of huge migration of population. We had other people coming in from the EU and I have asked the same questions. How can the Commission state those are places of safe origin?

Lastly, I have a different view on the European army. The move is towards a common defence policy and a standing EU army. While Mr. Kiely stated that nobody is talking about that, it is the subtext and the agenda that is coming from many states within Europe. They want to see it and want to see us moving down that road. At a time of austerity, high unemployment, creaking public services, we are investing in more military spending. It is incredible and reflects how out of touch are many of our European elites.

Mr. Kiely spoke about terrorism and that we have to defend ourselves, but many of the terrorist attacks that have happened across Europe have involved people who were born and grew up in those countries. That is a concern and a difficulty. There is something wrong with investing in more weaponry at a time when people are going to bed hungry, and I would question that. There are difficulties with the direction in which Europe in going with respect to many of the key elements in the Commission's work programme. Thankfully, people are starting to speak out about it. If the EU elites do not begin to change, we will face a hugely difficult time when there will be even more pressure on the structures and people will rethink about our membership of the Union. That is the big concern I have.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Kiely to the committee and thank him for his presentation. I hope he does not take personally what I have to say. He is a representative here doing a job. The opening statement on the yellow sheet carries the heading, "A Europe that preserves our way of life and empowers our young". However, do we want to preserve the way of life we have slipped into as a result of mismanagement of the economy not only in Ireland but right across Europe and right across the western world? We have thrown our young onto the scrapheap. At least two generations will suffer as a result of what has happened. I do not want to see the way of life we have created for them preserved. Mr. Kiely will forgive me for saying this but these documents were prepared by somebody somewhere in the annals of the European Union and they contain all this grand flowery language, but we have failed people.

My colleague spoke about the rise of populism. Populism arose because there was a vacuum. We have lost the support of the people, the ordinary Joe Soap on the ground. They have no faith in politics or in politicians. We get countless attacks on social media, and I am sure the same is the case for Mr. Kiely in his job, referring to us as wasters and having our noses in the trough. We can understand where that criticism comes from when we see the way we have wrecked lives right across Europe, which is another issue we have to discuss.

With respect to the grand idea that we would have an integrated digital Single Market, if a person drives 80 miles north of here, the moment he or she hits the Border, he or she will find how integrated our digital markets are. That person's phone will switch over to another network and he or she will have to pay roaming charges. That will not get any easier as Brexit comes down the line. There has been a singular failure there.

We talk about building a deeper and fairer Internal Market. I will give Mr. Kiely an example of how fair the Internal Market is. A colleague of mine who suffers from blood pressure problems buys his drugs in Lanzarote. He told me he paid €10.95 for a year's supply of drugs that would cost him €1,024 in Ireland. I cannot verify that but if we are to have a Single Market, I should be able to buy a McDonald's burger in Madrid for the same price I would buy it in Berlin, Amsterdam and Dublin. Similarly, I should be able to buy my medical prescriptions in any country in the European Union for exactly the same cost. Why is it that the Single Market works in some areas and does not necessarily work in other areas? I know Mr. Kiely's background is in agriculture and he will have seen the Single Market work in agriculture to some degree. It has not favoured all of the agricultural sector and it certainly has not favoured the fisheries sector. On the notion that we will have a fairer market, I will know there is a fairer market when the price of a blood pressure tablet is the same in Europe no matter where I go. That, for me, is what would signify a deeper, fairer market.

We talk about an energy strategy, but we have been mucking about for God knows how long about the North-South interconnector. I know that does not necessarily fall into Mr. Kiely's lap, but it is a project for which funding no doubt will come from the European Union. That will probably be lost because of the mucking about there is now with Brexit coming down the line, which is a huge problem.

Mr. Kiely's statement covered strengthening our trade defence instruments. That suggests there is a veiled threat that we will see the return of tariffs and so on as Brexit flows through. Mr. Kiely might address that. I am sorry for coming at him like this on these elements.

On the security issue, I can understand how we would want a single point of purchase for military equipment but I would have to agree with my colleague in questioning why there is an emphasis on purchasing military might when thousands of people across Europe are unemployed and when we cannot manage our hospitals and that is not only the case in Ireland. I was watching proceedings in the UK yesterday. The UK is still a member of the European Union. I heard that maternity services there are falling to pieces because they do not have the resources to deal with them. I am sure the position is no different across the European Union.

On the element of strengthening Europe's role as a global actor, I have serious concerns about the way we in the West, and I include Europe and the United States in this, think we know what is best for the Syria, north Africa and various other places. If we had invested properly in north Africa, people would not want to run out of it. There are many economic migrants from there, aside from those who are fleeing war-torn countries. When we consider war-torn countries like Syria, we armed them, we gave them the weapons and trained them in how to use them, and then when they turned them on their own people, we armed the resistance groups. We have a massive amount to pay. If Europe was to take a global role, it might take a global role based on the Irish peacekeeping role and not become an aggressor.

We talk about having fairer taxation systems. This country alone is bleeding somewhere between €250 million and €350 million a year through vulture funds that have been allowed in here. They were allowed in because we had to sell off the resources of this country to save the euro. The European system was no friend to Ireland when the crash came. The European system hung this country out to dry and has made us pay through the nose for it. I would love to see the solidarity mentioned in this document and shared responsibility coming into play, but I do not see that happening.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I will say something about Brexit. We need to step up to the plate, take a leading role and tell the 26 member states what is acceptable for us. I hate to say this as a committed European, but the 26 member states need to take account of our special position, in particular with the North of Ireland, and there can be no Border and no change to the circumstances in which we currently live. I have to be able to sit in my car and drive to any part of Northern Ireland without encountering any delays or stops. The time has come, and I hope Mr. Kiely will bring this point back to the Commission, where Ireland is a special case, the North of Ireland is a special case and we cannot and will not tolerate any situation which will force us back to the old days of the Border and Border controls because if we do, there is a likelihood that we will start to talk about an NIexit. I do not want the voice of the NIexit group to grow any louder than it currently is. Some 41% of our agricultural output and 35% of our textiles and leather output go the UK and 60,000 people have emigrated to the UK between 2011 and 2013. I do not know how many thousands of Irish people are in the UK.

There are approximately 25,000 people from the United Kingdom living in this country. Our two economies have been inextricably linked for over 800 years. One hundred years ago, we decided we were a republic on our own. As citizens of a republic, we cannot be in circumstances in which we are subservient to the United Kingdom or the other member states as we move into Brexit. As a good partner and friend of Europe, Ireland must be recognised by the European Union as having a unique problem. The EU member states should gather around behind us and help us with the Northern Border.

I am sorry for rattling on a bit. I thank Mr. Kiely for his time and for attending today.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Kiely. There is an increasing amount of talk about the necessity of a transitional arrangement for Brexit. Senator Craughwell referred to how many Irish people are in Britain. I have heard various estimates, one of 700,000 or perhaps even more. I do not know how many UK citizens are here.

Everybody throughout Europe seems to agree Ireland is a special case and that it must retain the no-border scenario and have a common travel area. Among the French and German people we have met, there seems to be goodwill in this regard. Could Mr. Kiely speak briefly about the transitional arrangement? There is a belief that Brexit will not be worked out within the envisaged timeframe of two years. Could Mr. Kiely comment on what Prime Minister May set out yesterday, particularly the transitional arrangement in respect of Ireland, with which we are naturally preoccupied?

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could Mr. Kiely give us an overview of his responses? I hate to ask him to do this but he should try to condense his answers if he can; otherwise, we will have to go for sandwiches.

Mr. Gerry Kiely:

That is the instruction the Chairman should have given before the questions.

My hands are tied on Brexit. I could talk to members at length about Brexit but the Commission and President have taken a position that we are not going to give a running commentary on it. We need to have Article 50 triggered sooner rather than later. We want to get on with it because there are things to be done.

Mr. Barnier will be the chief negotiator for the European Union. He is the Commission's negotiator. He has been here. I have been at meetings with him across the board. The Commission is well aware of the political and economic implications of Brexit for Ireland. The Government has been doing a tour of the capitals. I am sure many people in them are aware of the circumstances. Members, farm organisations, NGOs and others should never stop telling everybody the story because these negotiations will be difficult. The only people who will be involved in them who are neutral will be the officials from the Commission. Every member state will bear in mind the European Union's interests but also its own. The Commission must bear in mind the European Union's interests only. It is very cognisant of the challenges that will arise for Ireland owing to Brexit. One should never stop telling the story, however.

I have been at many conferences and I have been involved in many discussions on the implications of Brexit. We do not know what Brexit will look like. Admittedly, we received some more clarification yesterday on what Britain is looking for but we do not know what Brexit will look like. We do not know what the negotiating positions of the individual member states will be when the negotiations begin. Ireland could already be drawing up potential solutions that would benefit it. I refer to the Government, the NGOs and others. There are many very intelligent people in Government organisations, the Civil Service and various other organisations. Everybody can see the implications for Ireland and the obstacles to trade and the political problems that will arise in the event of various options being chosen. People should be considering possible solutions now and putting them on the table, be it at the Commission or in the capitals. We should be preparing people because one cannot expect those outside Ireland to do so, with the possible exception of the Commission because it is committed to looking after Irish interests in the same way as it is committed to looking after other member states' interests. One cannot expect people in Berlin, Paris or any other capital to spend time looking for a solution for Ireland. The ideas for a solution should come from Ireland, which should try to persuade the others around the table on its merits and the reasons it should be acceptable. That is all I can say on Brexit. Within the Commission and the capitals, there is an appreciation of the fact that the implications are greater for Ireland than anywhere else. One should never stop telling the story, however.

With regard to trade, TTIP will be frozen until we see the view of the next US Administration on trade. Certainly, the indications do not suggest the United States has an interest in forging ahead on trade deals. We have a lot in common with the United States. The United States and European Union are the two biggest and lucrative economies in the world. They have a lot in common. A trade deal would have been worth a lot to Ireland, in spite of what people say about the negative aspect of trade. It is very important for Ireland to have open markets as it is dependent on exports. The EU market can absorb so much from Ireland but circumstances are different when the growth is outside the EU market. Members mentioned Indonesia, Vietnam and other regions. This is where the growth will arise. Therefore, Ireland and the European Union as a whole need an increasing amount of trade. Trade is good for citizens. Admittedly, the traders are the primary beneficiaries but, without their benefiting within the European Union, they will not be creating employment.

I find it strange that people say globalisation is negative. For globalisation to be negative, one must be importing something at a lower price than it can be produced in the European Union or Ireland. The person importing the product is the consumer, however. The person benefiting from the lower price is the consumer. There are more consumers than producers. Certainly, people have lost their jobs because of imports but many people have gained jobs because of imports. Saying there should not be freer trade or globalisation means one wants to protect an inefficient operator inside the border by comparison with an external operator on the back of the Irish or European consumer. There is an opportunity cost also because one cannot support an inefficient producer ad infinitum. It will go to the wall eventually. One is just postponing the pain. The resource, be it labour, capital or otherwise, could have been put into something that would have been efficient and competitive economically.

The European Commission and European Union believe in trade. We will continue irrespective of what others around the world might think about trade. We do not talk about free trade but about trade liberalisation. I cannot think of any free-trade agreement we have today – we have many – under which trade is totally liberalised. There is always a restriction in sensitive sectors. Mention was made of agriculture in this regard. We virtually always have restrictions in regard to agriculture because, given our commitment to a particular agricultural model based on the multifunctional nature of European agriculture, we want to protect the model. That type of model cannot be protected if there is total liberalisation of trade. Usually, sensitive sectors are treated differently.

The European Union has become an easy candidate for criticism over recent years. There are many eurosceptics, including newfound eurosceptics, and populists seeking publicity on the back of the European Union with a view to self-promotion. Not enough effort has been made by the pro-Europeans to defend the European Union. To return to Deputy Haughey's question on Brexit, there have been many analyses of the British referendum.

Personally, I am convinced that the British referendum was not lost during the campaign. Much of it was lost before the campaign because for the last 30 years the eurosceptics have had a free open goal. Every day of the week, the media, pundits and so forth were criticising the EU and nobody was answering back because, first, they did not wish to put their heads above the parapet and, second, they did not think it would make a difference. They know different now. It does make a difference.

One cannot leave the field open to eurosceptics or critics. They must be answered, and we answer them. The European Commission, European Parliament and the institutions answer them, but it cannot be done from Brussels alone. It must be done at national level by anybody who believes that the European Union, warts and all, should continue. We accept that there are problems with the EU and that it could be better, but the exercise on that will continue. However, if people want the EU to continue it should be defended by the people on the ground at national level, be it politicians, non-governmental organisations, NGOs, or sectoral interests. There are more people among the public who believe that the EU should continue than believe it should not, and they should defend it. They should not be depending on the European Commission or others to defend it, because when we do and say people are wrong they will say, "What else would they say? They are paid to say that". It is much better if the defence comes from the local level.

On the special status of Ireland in the context of Brexit, that is down the road and a matter for somebody else on a higher salary than mine. However, the first issue is that Article 50 must be triggered so the negotiations can start.

With regard to water, my recollection is that there was a letter to the committee about water from Commissioner Karmenu Vella. It recognised domestic politics but also highlighted the fact that there is a law, the water directive, which deals with polluter pays, cost recovery and so forth. There is flexibility for the country, but the directive is clear. The directive has been in place for a long time so people should be quite familiar with it.

I agree on the Internal Market. The reason we are looking at the Internal Market is that it must be deepened. The example of pharmaceuticals might not really relate to the Internal Market. It is probably more to do with the Spanish health service and the subsidies it might be given - I do not know. Certainly, the Internal Market is not complete. There are factors which will play into the cost, with different prices for the same product in different countries, that have nothing to do with the Internal Market, such as local wages, local rents and so forth. The purpose of the exercise is that we wish to deepen the Internal Market and make it more complete.

On strengthening trade defence instruments, there is more globalisation and trade liberalisation. We are looking at having a mechanism that can prevent somebody from abusing the EU market through having practices in place which give them an advantage and which are not totally in line with World Trade Organisation, WTO, rules and so forth. However, if one wishes to take a WTO case it can take four or five years. Meanwhile, the damage is done. We are looking at it purely from that point of view. Yes, it might involve tariffs or blocking a product completely, depending on how serious the distortion of trade is, but it would be for a particular reason.

Regarding Turkey and the immigrants, we are dealing with political reality here. The Deputy is as aware as I am of the discussions with the member states. The zones that have been created, which the EU is financing, are under strict NGO and EU control. It is not a question of us saying, "Let them go to that country" or whatever. They are in specific zones which are equipped to the best of people's ability and are under strict supervision.

The Deputy spoke about austerity and spending money on the European army. In fact, we are saying almost the opposite. I gave the example. If there was a common approach with what is being spent at present we could conceivably save €100 billion. By standing still and doing nothing, one could save €100 billion. Our proposal is not necessarily that more should be spent but that there should be more co-operation. This might happen down the road. We have heard the discussions about the future of NATO, countries' roles in NATO, the possibility that Europe might have to spend more on defending itself and so forth, but what we are discussing today is more inter-operability between the different armies of the member states and a common approach on procurement. It has been estimated that this alone could save €100 billion, so by standing still there could be €100 billion more to spend on more needy causes.

Chairman, I believe I have covered most of the points. If I have not, I will be happy to supply the replies.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you for taking the time to attend today and to engage with us on the Commission's plans. We wish you and your colleagues well in the year ahead. We hope you will continue to develop good relations with the committee. We have an open door policy. If a situation arises in the future where I or members of the committee consider it important for you to appear again before the committee, we will be happy to welcome you with open arms. We are all here to work together and to do our best in our different roles.

I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow for a changeover of witnesses.