Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to make a short contribution on the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003. This arises from the findings of the commission set up to draw the appropriate boundaries to provide the necessary representation to the European Parliament. I have great respect for Deputy Harkin's views, but it is unworthy to cast aspersions, even inadvertently, on the working of the independent commission. Nobody is ever satisfied at the outcome of the redrawing of constituency boundaries. That is the hand of cards we have been dealt and we should be big enough to play the hand.

I pay tribute to the Members of the European Parliament who represent Ireland, North and South. I had the opportunity over an 18 month period of working reasonably closely with a number of them. I met all of them, with one exception, and they impressed me. I am full of praise for our MEPs from all parties and none. At this stage I pay tribute to those who are not going forward and compliment them for the work they have done. Mr. Niall Andrews, a Fianna Fáil representative for Dublin who is not seeking re-election, has an unparalleled record in bringing human rights issues of the lesser known parts of the world to the attention of the broader European electorate as well as at home. Ms Mary Banotti regularly gave feedback to the electorate in Dublin and we should have more of that. Mr. Fitzsimons and Mr. Hyland brought their unique experience to bear on the work of the European Parliament. Mr. Joe McCartin, who impressed me greatly, will not go forward again. He had insights about rural Ireland which he was not afraid to voice. I was impressed by the manner in which the MEPs worked in the European groups.

If I were to sound a cautionary note for those thinking of going forward as candidates for the European elections it is that the Irish electorate will expect more information and greater contact with their MEPs. Deputy Harkin and I are on the European affairs and European scrutiny committees and whether we like it much of the action that affects us fundamentally will take place in Brussels or Strasbourg and the influence of the European Parliament will be greater rather than lesser.

I will set out the job description for a Member of the European Parliament. According to the draft constitution which will be adopted by the Intergovernmental Conference and Council of Ministers, article 13(1) states that the European Parliament shall jointly with the Council of Ministers enact legislation and exercise the budgetary function as well as functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the constitution. It will elect the President of the European Commission. These are important powers. I echo what has been said by a number of speakers that it is outdated to represent the electorate both in the Dáil and the European Parliament. While we have a derogation until 2007, we should ensure that nobody is tempted to continue that further. It states also that the European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal suffrage of European citizens in free and secret ballot for a term of five years. Its members shall not exceed 736 in number and representation of European citizens shall be degressively proportional with a minimum threshold of four members per member state.

As to illusions of the growing power of the Parliament, article 26(2) states that the president and the person so nominated for membership of the college — the college of the commission — including the future Union Minister for Foreign Affairs as well as the persons nominated as non-voting commissioners shall be submitted collectively to a vote of approval by the European Parliament and the Commission's term of office shall be five years. Let there be no doubt that the power of the European Parliament is growing and will grow further.

The engagement of the Oireachtas with the European Parliament has improved dramatically in recent years, It is infinitely better than when I served from 1997 to 2002. That is due in large measure to Government decisions to accord a higher priority to the work of the European affairs committee and I acknowledge the compliments the Taoiseach and Ministers have paid to the members of the European affairs committee. The media have shown a greater level of interest in the work of the European affairs committee since 1 January but I doubt if it will continue beyond 30 June — I live in hope.

The other area that has contributed greatly to the interface between the Dáil, the European Parliament, the Commission and the work of Brussels has been the improved level of scrutiny that has been put in place here by the Government. Four items from Thursday's meeting of the European affairs committee involve co-decision between the Parliament and the Commission and were submitted to us for preliminary scrutiny. First is a proposal amending a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security. That proposal will have a significant and positive impact on the operation of smaller airports in Ireland and across Europe. I understand it is being introduced largely at the behest of the Scandinavian countries and smaller airports in Scotland. Second, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on intermodal loading units. I know the jargon puts people off and colleagues say we need to simplify the language of directives and laws coming from Europe. We could start by using simpler English.

This is an important proposal in the area of transport. Through the proposed directive the European committee on standardisation would be mandated over a three year period to work out details on the standards necessary for intermodal loading units and a regulatory committee would then adopt the mandatory standards.

The implications for Ireland are clear in the documents we have received but the method will be qualified majority voting and a co-decision will also be required by the European Parliament and the Council.

I think Deputy Harkin would agree that we receive approximately 50 of these documents at each meeting. Another one involves a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council concerning measures to safeguard the security of electricity supplies and infrastructural investment. That directive forms part of a new energy infrastructure and security of supply legislative package, which is designed in the main to promote investment in the European energy sector with a view both to strengthening competition and helping to prevent a recurrence of electricity blackouts. It has some implications, although not great, for Ireland but it adverts to the increasing dependence of Ireland on the North-South interconnector and the east-west Ireland-Wales interconnection system also. Those are a couple of relevant examples.

Another directive concerns excise duties and I will have to do some more reading up on it before talking about it on Thursday. It strikes me as possibly being the thin end of the wedge of standardisation of taxation measures in some areas. This is certainly something the Government is not anxious to see happening and it is part of our negotiating stance at the IGC.

Under the proposed constitution, the European Parliament will be closely linked to national Parliaments. It is important to debate and understand the role of, and protocols relating to, national Parliaments. For example, under the proposed constitution, member states' national Parliaments may send to the President of the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the Commission, a reasoned opinion on whether a legislative proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity according to the procedure laid down in the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Even though I was involved in drafting this, when I read it, I do not think it is exactly the clearest literature in the world. The important part is in the following paragraph, which states: "A six week period shall elapse between a legislative proposal being made available by the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the member states' national parliaments in the official languages of the European Union, and the date when it is placed on the agenda of the Council of Ministers for adoption of a position on a legislative procedure subject to exceptions on the grounds of urgency, etc." That represents a significant tightening up of the inter-relationship between national Parliaments, the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers.

I admire the fact that the more active Members of the European Parliament have always engaged in an exchange of information and feedback to the electorate. They need, however, to move to the next stage and we should facilitate them in providing formalised mechanisms so they can engage in debate in their national Parliaments. During the last term, there was a useful exercise in the Seanad when Members of the European Parliament made statements to the Upper House and engaged in a question and answer session with Senators. That was an important first step but we need to engage more creatively with Members of the European Parliament. They attend meetings of the Committee on European Affairs, as of right. Many of them are diligent in their attendance and contributions there but it has been said that the committee does not schedule its meetings at times that are convenient for Members of the European Parliament. Perhaps there is something in that criticism. On a number of occasions, the MEPs have said they would prefer the Committee on European Affairs to sit on Fridays to facilitate their attendance.

While I do not pretend to be an expert on how previous European Parliaments operated, from the next European Parliament onwards, national and European parliamentarians will depend on one another and will not be able to act otherwise. Significant debate is required, for example, on security and defence policy. There is much more engagement in that area in the European Parliament than in the Oireachtas or most other national Parliaments in Europe. There is also the perspective of what the European family, as it is called in Europe, can bring to bear on such debates. With increased numbers in the next European Parliament following the arrival of the ten accession countries in May and the likelihood that we will have at least two more new member states shortly thereafter, it would be extremely foolish to think that the European Parliament will be simply a talking shop. It is, and will be, far from that. Critical areas include defence, foreign affairs and security, and we cannot ignore the fact that we will have to have some co-ordination of those policies.

I have one major criticism of the European Parliament, however. I am not persuaded of the need to have a second assembly in Strasbourg, which is a waste of money. It is an inefficient way of conducting the business of Europe. The organisation in Brussels seems to be well tailored to provide a fairly efficient operation. I realise that there is a certain national pride at stake for the countries involved in accommodating the European Parliament but it is one of the areas in which Europe has fallen down. I do not know whether our lone voice will make any great difference but perhaps things would be more efficient if the Council of Europe continued its good work in Strasbourg, while the European Parliament was located permanently in Brussels.

Admittedly, the Bill provides for us to send a reduced number of Irish MEPs this time around but it reflects the extent of our population. We still do marginally better in representation than our population should entitle us to do but, nonetheless, it is important to keep the membership as high as possible. That point was debated at length during the convention on the future of Europe. There is a threshold below which small countries, such as Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg, can lose influence.

The Bill is technical in nature but provides an opportunity to affirm our understanding of the importance of the European Parliament, as well as an opportunity to stress how we see ourselves as contributors to the debate on Europe. While only a month of our current EU Presidency has passed, Irish Presidencies have always been most proactive and creative. The current one will probably cap its predecessors in terms of achievement.

I would like to see the Intergovernmental Conference's debate on the draft European constitution concluded, but we should not rush all our fences. In many ways, having no European constitution would be better than having a bad one. While the Council of Heads of State and Government was very close to agreement last December, we must remember that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

There is potential for some of the issues we hoped had been put to bed to be reopened again, which is something we should try to avoid. However, that is in the future.

I wish the very best to all those contemplating putting their names forward as candidates in the forthcoming elections on 11 June. They are taking on a huge level of responsibility. I hope the people will find the election campaign and the lead-up to it an opportunity for engaging in active debate about Ireland's role in the new and expanding Europe. Not to avail of that opportunity is a missed opportunity. I do not expect we will be able to get large crowds at the crossroads, as in earlier days in Irish politics, to listen to the obscure and abstruse aspects of European politics. However, it would be a shame not to play our part and use the opportunity to explain to the people we represent the mechanisms in place to make Europe more real to its citizens. We should also use the opportunity to explain to them the reasons it is important for us to complete and adopt a draft constitutional treaty.

See this speech in context