DÁIL ÉIREANN

AN COMHCHOISTE UM GHNÓTHAÍ AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN UNION AFFAIRS

Dé Céadaoin, 14 Feabhra 2018

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

Tháinig an Comhchoiste le chéile ag 2 p.m.

The Joint Committee met at 2 p.m.

Comhaltaí a bhí i láthair / Members present:

Teachtaí Dála / Deputies Seanadóirí / Senators Colm Brophy, Paul Coghlan, David Cullinane, Gerard P. Craughwell, Bernard J. Durkan, Terry Leyden, Seán Haughey, Neale Richmond. Mattie McGrath.

I láthair / In attendance: Senators John Dolan, Billy Lawless and Niall Ó Donnghaile.

Teachta / Deputy Michael Healy-Rae sa Chathaoir / in the Chair.

1 JEUA Engagement with MEPs

Chairman: Senator Neale Richmond has let us know that he will be a little late. A number of MEPs, including , , Seán Kelly and , were not able to make it here today and we have been asked to note their apologies. I met with Brian Hayes in person a few days ago and he explained to me what he is doing today. He made it clear that he wanted to be here, but he cannot, nor can the others. Due to Murphy’s law, at approximately 3.10 p.m., I will have to vacate the Chair to go to the Dáil as we have been selected for a Topi- cal Issue debate. I remind members, witnesses and people in the Visitors Gallery to ensure their mobile phones are switched off. I welcome Ms Mairead McGuinness, MEP, Ms , MEP, Ms Liadh Ní Riada, MEP, and Mr. , MEP, and I thank them for taking the time to engage with the committee today. We hope to complete this session in one hour so with the agreement of the witnesses, owing to Ms McGuinness’s role as first vice president, of which we are immensely proud, I propose to allow her to make a five-minute opening statement first, following which each of the other MEPs will have an opportunity to make a five-minute opening statement. We will then have a questions and answers session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Today we are discussing the Brexit negotiations, the future of Europe, the future composi- tion of the following Brexit and any other issues which the MEPs and members would like to discuss. Before we commence, I must advise the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by the commit- tee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a 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 they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. 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 or body out- side the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Ms McGuinness to make her opening statement.

Mairead McGuinness: I am delighted to be here. One of my roles as first vice-president is to liaise and dialogue with national Parliaments. I believe we need to dialogue more and to do so better. The chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of national Parliaments meet every six months in the country that holds the Presidency. I attend those meetings. I understand the Chairman, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, has not yet attended. These are meetings where en- gagement takes place with colleagues from other national Parliaments.

Senator Terry Leyden: The Chairman is well represented by the Vice Chair.

Ms Mairead McGuinness: Yes and by other members of the committee. I sometimes think there is a little bit of tension, unnecessarily so, between national parliamentarians and Members of the European Parliament. We are all elected by citizens and we do the same work and I think we could do it better together. I would be interested in hearing the committee’s observations in that regard.

On the topics for discussion, the taskforce on subsidiarity is in place. National parliamen- tarians will have a role in that taskforce and the European Parliament will provide the facilities.

2 14 FEBRUARY 2018 I hope to be involved in the work of the working group. Specifically on the future of Europe, I am happy to see that is doing a lot on the future of Europe by way of national consulta- tions led by the Minister with responsibility for European Affairs, Deputy McEntee. Last night, a meeting was held in County Meath, led by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Creed, on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, with a further meeting to be held tonight in Carrick-on-Shannon. We are doing a lot of work in Ireland on very serious is- sues around the future of Europe which are linked to the budgetary issues. This came across very strongly at last night’s meeting. It is important to put on the record that every person who spoke at the meeting last night said that in light of the trend in farm incomes we need not only to hold onto the budget we have but to push for an increase in the budget for the Common Ag- ricultural Policy. While that might be a difficult proposal to discuss it is important to put on the record the view of the people on the ground.

In regard to Brexit, we are trying to garner the UK position from various speeches that have been read into the record, including today. While the UK has said it does not want to see the European Union weakened, with every speech, I get the opposite impression. There is a sense from the UK side that it is going alone on the high seas, breaking off to do global trade agree- ments without the European Union and suggesting that it can be bigger and better without being part of the European Union. For all its flaws, Europe has been very good at keeping people at the table. Large and small countries have managed to work together and to do so effectively. We are now seeing the consequences of one country deciding that it might be better off doing its own thing. This week, a report was published, that shows the serious consequences of Brexit for Ireland. It will be important for us in the Parliament, in terms of our making sure it fully understands the impact for Ireland.

Parliamentarians are working well together not only on the Irish issues but on the conse- quences for the European Union around its future but issues are being forgotten about, includ- ing public health and consumer protection issues. Europe currently has in place a huge amount of rules and regulations which protect public health not only in Ireland but across the European Union.

On the composition of the European Parliament, Ireland is set to gain two seats, although this has yet to be confirmed by the Council. If that happens, all of us would like to know where and how the boundaries might be drawn to accommodate the two extra seats. The sooner we know that the better because the elections will take place in May 2019. The issue of trans- national lists was voted down by the Parliament. My own view is that it is an idea not to be scrapped. It is one that could be developed in future when other matters at a European level have settled down.

While our focus is on Brexit, with so much happening we also have to keep an eye to the debate about the future. I hope that the voice from Ireland is that we believe that Europe has a future but that we will have to engage differently. In my speech to the European Parliament last week I made the point that I will miss the engagement with MEPs from the United Kingdom. Those who worked well in the Parliament will be missed. Their voices will be missed at the Council table and we will have to reflect that in how we do our business.

While the engagement between national Parliaments and the European Parliament is work- ing it could be better. I am interested to hear the committee’s thoughts on that engagement. I acknowledge that everybody is busy and that the Chairman has to leave soon to go to the Dáil Chamber. We are never in Ireland when this committee is meeting. If we believe that Europe needs to be strengthened and reformed then I think we need to work well. I appreciate this op- 3 JEUA portunity.

Chairman: I thank Ms McGuinness and I now invite Ms Deirdre Clune to make her open- ing statement.

Ms Deirdre Clune: I thank the committee for facilitating this meeting. Brexit is consum- ing Parliament. In terms of the March session, we are currently working on a resolution on what the future arrangement could or should be with the UK but we are operating in a vacuum because as everybody knows the UK does not know what it wants. I know that the committee has held numerous hearings on the likely impacts of Brexit. At the same time, the future of Europe is very much part of the debate in the Parliament. Only last week the Prime Minister of Croatia was in Parliament outlining Croatia’s position and the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, was also there outlining issues relating to Ireland’ s position. The budget is dominating procedures today. An announcement was made earlier today by the Commission on how the future budget of the European Union could be structured. When the UK leaves Europe, there will be a gap in funding of approximately €12 billion. How this gap is to be filled needs to be addressed. Is it going to be filled or is it going to be addressed by increased contributions from member states or is it going to be a combination of budgetary cuts and contributions from member states, or is it going to be completely left as a gap and the programmes cut? This is going to be a matter for member states. We certainly do not want to see a cut in programmes, especially those such as the CAP, but there is a lot of pressure to increase funding for security. We are all very much aware of the security issue and the challenge is there with the fight against terrorism and ensur- ing that borders are protected, that information is shared among member states and that citizens are protected. This is a challenge, along with the challenge of migration. While we do not hear as much about the migration challenge in Ireland, dealing with migration is a real challenge for our southern European neighbours as is the contribution to Turkey and dealing with migrants there. These are pressures on the budget. The CAP is very important to Ireland but nonetheless the contribution has decreased to just under 40% or 38% from a level of more than 70% many years ago. These are the challenges facing us. I am aware that the budget will be on the agenda of the EU Council on 23 February, so I am sure we will hear whether it will increase. Ireland is now a net contributor but we gain substantially in our contribution under the CAP.

I will now give the committee a sense of my own work with the European Parliament Com- mittee on Transport and Tourism, TRAN. We are very conscious, obviously, of the impact of Brexit on transport issues. Next week there will be a hearing on what Brexit will mean for mari- time issues and if we should be developing our short sea shipping routes. We have already had a hearing on road transport and the implications for European consumers and for Ireland; how we are going to get across the UK and what that means if the EU has invested in road projects across the UK; how the investment continues and how we benefit Ireland. Ireland does a lot of trade with the UK but we also do a substantial amount with the EU mainland. The fastest way to the Continent is across the UK and through its very busy Dover-Calais route, which is the shortest and most efficient route. Where do we stand on that? There is particular concern around aviation because the UK is so close to Ireland geographically. If there is a cliff edge scenario and if the UK leaves the European Union without an aviation agreement in place we are in trouble because there is no alternative arrangement to fall back to without an European aviation agreement. There is nothing in the World Trade Organization, WTO, guidelines that would facilitate that. We really would need some form of arrangement in place to facilitate aviation because European airspace is supervised by the European Air Safety Agency and every EU country abides by its rules, regulations and supervision. If the UK is no longer part of the European Union, then there will be a problem for those who cross UK airspace. These are the

4 14 FEBRUARY 2018 kinds of issues that the TRAN committee focuses on. We are moving forward now; we are into the second phase of negotiations in terms of what will the future arrangements be and focusing on the real difficult issues relating to transport. This gives the members a sense of the work we do.

The European Parliament Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, EMPL, is also looking at the issues. I am aware other contributors want to speak but I am happy to discuss this and to elaborate on my work in that area for the members.

Ms Liadh Ní Riada: Go raibh maith agat. I am sorry that I will not be able to stay for the whole meeting. It is very important that we have a cohesive approach when we are dealing with Brexit from the national Parliament, Dáil Éireann and from an EU perspective. I sit on the European Parliament Committee on Budgets, BUDG, as a co-ordinator and the picture for the future is not looking good at all. We are currently discussing the multi-annual financial frame- work, MFF. Commissioner Oettinger said this morning that they are looking at a 15% cut to the CAP. This is not a big surprise but in real terms it is a cut of €60 billion. How will we shore up that gap when the cut is actually implemented? They are also talking about cuts to cohesion policy or aid to more developed countries, of which Ireland was a beneficiary. This cut will be about €95 billion. It seems to be cuts right across the board due to the debts we now see because of the British going out. How are we going to shore this up? I spoke with representatives from the European Investment Bank yesterday and they spoke of having a €300 million reserve fund in place as a measure to protect us against Brexit. I do not believe it is enough. It is a start and it may be a step in the right direction but we need to be more creative in how we are going to use more strategically the funds that are there to help those who are most vulnerable; those in the agriculture and fisheries sector. Fisheries seems to be very much an industry that is not being talked about. Ireland will be providing most of the waters when the British waters are out of the equation. Those displaced boats will be coming in to fish from Irish waters and Ireland will still be dealing with the same quota. There are huge challenges for the fishing industry, which is already on its knees, and I do not believe it is going to improve after Brexit - not by a long shot. We have to put absolute safeguards in place to protect and sustain our fishing industry. The MFF is a huge worry. Given that we will have less money, the bottom line is that we will do more, or the same, with less money or that member states will be asked to contribute more. It is as simple as that. These are the two options. We must be very robust in how we deal with the MFF, particularly at Council level and with regard to Ireland’s representation there so we do not suffer hugely when we see the CAP. I am aware that Ms Anderson and Mr. Carthy will probably speak more about trade and other issues but I just wanted to give the committee a heads-up from the budget perspective. Fágfaidh mé mar sin é.

Ms Martina Anderson: I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee today. I sit on three EU Parliament committees; the constitutional affairs committee, the civil liberties committee and the regional development committee. Each committee deals primarily with the Brexit files, as do other committees. All of us have read, line by line, the joint report of 8 De- cember. The European Parliament, the Commission and the Council have stated that the com- mitments given had to be faithfully and fully implemented and brought into legal texts. This legal text is currently being worked on. Sinn Féin had advocated caution on the 8 December because we did not accept the assessment given to us that these were cast iron guarantees. What has played out this week is proof positive that they were not cast iron guarantees. We advo- cated caution because nobody knows better than us the British in the context of negotiations. We know how duplicitous they can be and we know they will roll back from negotiation. Once one decides and declares a bottom line, the next stage for the British is to negotiate downwards.

5 JEUA Some of the reports we have heard from Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and today clearly show that this is exactly what is happening.

Without a doubt it is fundamentally better that we do not have any barriers North-South or east-west. There is nothing wrong with trying to explore all that but because Theresa May is always questioned on this, she has repeatedly and categorically said that the entire territory is leaving the Single Market and the customs union. If this is the case then we have to ensure the draft treaty, which is currently being worked on, incudes binding terms, called the back-stop option No. 3. For example, if there is no agreement, then we would have a situation of full alignment in the North. Some people make reference to the full alignment only in the context of North-South co-operation but as the committee will be aware, having read the text, it includes North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, which is crucially important.

Today and yesterday we have heard reports that contingency planning is taking place in the State for a hard border. A report came out yesterday or today around the Dublin docklands and its terminal in the context of planning for border controls. Ms McGuinness referred to the Co- penhagen report and the damage that it has outlined for the State and how growth will be affect- ed, going down by 7%. We are also aware that the UK’s Department for Exiting the European Union has produced a report. Mr. Chris Hazzard is a Member of Parliament. Every MP has to go into a locked room without a phone, a pen or a pencil to see the report. He is in it today to examine the details of that report as the British Government does not want that report out there. We have heard information that it will result in a 12% drop in gross domestic product, GDP, for the North and we know 10% of the North’s GDP comes from European funding. We can see that 54 weeks into the process, there is infighting in the British Cabinet. Mr. Boris Johnson is trying today to give some measure of assurance for those of us who voted to remain but he is certainly not speaking to the people of Ireland, never mind the people of the North. We know from Mr. Barnier’s comments in Europe that there is a chaotic Brexit negotiation taking place.

The European Union and the British Government knows this and I am inclined to agree with Ms McGuinness’s assessment of the British Government’s efforts around Brexit. It has not left any country without leaving it in a mess. This will come to the cliff-edge scenario and it will go over a cliff. Britain will try to create as much damage as it can, particularly for the people of Ireland, including those north, south, east and west. Mr. Barnier, Commissioner Hogan and others have said that if we are out of the customs union and Single Market in the North, there will be barriers, friction and borders. That is something that the contingency planning taking place needs to apply for the island in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. The only way to secure that is a process, whether it is what is known as designated special status for the North to remain in the EU, or as An Taoiseach called it when he was in Strasbourg, special ar- rangements for the North to remain in the EU. Whatever one calls it is irrelevant so long as the ingredients are the same. That means there must be a role for the European Court of Justice. There has been much talk of trade, barriers and all that is important.

I was thinking today and I remind everyone that I was born into a gerrymandered state 50 years ago. Only this week we have had a report from the British Government that it intends to reintroduce gerrymandering in the North. We can see that in the context of the Westminster elections and the report that has come from that. Esteemed academics like Professor McCrud- den, Mr. Liam Herrick of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Mr. Colm Harvey have said that rights are only genuine if they are reinforced. In this State there was the opportunity to hear from a senior judge in the European Court of Justice only last week, Mr. Anthony Collins. He

6 14 FEBRUARY 2018 spoke of the first right that will be lost for the people of the North, the right to representative democracy and the right to be represented in the European Parliament. The voice of the people of the North will be lost. He said it is not just unsatisfactory but it is illegal. Paragraph 53 of the joint report agreed in December indicates there were cast-iron guarantees, and it states the rights, entitlements, identity and the opportunity of the people of the North would not be lost as a consequence of the Article 50 agreement. We must be able to exercise those rights.

Whatever about the seats being allocated - I welcome the fact that two have been allocated to this State - this is about the entitlement of the people of Ireland. Three additional seats should be allocated to the people in the North of Ireland. The only way to secure that is the Irish Gov- ernment in Council ensuring there is a greater allocation of the seats. The 14 seats mean a seat is lost to Ireland as an island. As we all know, the Irish Government is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, so what it has said to the people about cast-iron guarantees must be implemented in this phase and before negotiations are allowed into the second phase. As the European Parliament and Council indicates, these must be fully and faithfully implemented. We hope this committee will ensure the commitments given in the joint report of December 8 will be followed through so the island, North and South, east and west, can be protected from the chaos and madness that Brexit will bring to this entire Ireland, whether one is from Derry or Kerry. We will all be damaged by it unless we come together and ensure the island can be protected.

Mr. Matt Carthy: I thank the committee not only for today’s opportunity but for a no- ticeable increase in co-operation between this committee and Irish MEPs. It is an important facet of our work, identified earlier as something we needed to improve. The committee has taken that on board and improved the communication. I thank the clerk and Ms Cáit Hayes, the Oireachtas representative in Brussels, who keeps us informed on key debates. I also thank the staff of the European Parliament office in Brussels, who also ensure we are aware of the legislative developments happening in Ireland when we deal with some very similar files at a European level. Ms Anderson and others have spoken about the Brexit position and I will not elaborate greatly on that, except to be positive where I can. Deputy Durkan knows I always try to be positive.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Absolutely.

Mr. Matt Carthy: The last time I attended this committee I was very critical of the Gov- ernment’s position on Brexit. I was critical of what I considered to be a weakness of language and a commitment to protect the entire Ireland. That changed considerably in the meantime and the Government’s position improved. It is important to note that and give credit. We must also tell the Government and representatives in this House that this process must continue and we must remain vigilant. The work did not stop on 8 December, when the communiqué was agreed, and in many ways the work only started then. What we got then was not the solution to the problems Ireland is facing as a result of Brexit but we potentially got the capacity to achieve the solution. It will only happen, as Ms Anderson notes, if we are determined to ensure no part of our country is sacrificed.

We must recognise that every part of our country is threatened with economic, political and social upheaval because of the current British Government’s position on Brexit and the North of Ireland. Everybody that I am aware of looking at this objectively at a European level and internationally, including in Britain, has not found a solution to the issues pertaining to our island with respect to Brexit that does not include the North of Ireland remaining as part of the customs union and Single Market. Mr. Barnier put that very clearly in his most recent remarks. 7 JEUA It needs to be the stated position, in my view, of this committee, all Irish MEPs and particularly the Irish Government.

I will touch on the future of the EU discussions that are ongoing. The Minister has organ- ised consultation meetings but the entire project of discussion at an EU level may be a wasted opportunity. Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker effectively usurped discussions before they were even started in his so-called state of the EU address. He outlined his own position quite emphatically. It can be described as a cursory nod towards Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and other major political upheavals, with the position of the EU doing what it always intended to only, only more quickly than originally envisaged and with less democratic oversight. That can be clearly seen with the move towards Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, and a so-called European defence. The vote in these Houses was rushed through with zero public debate and members might ask their constituents if they are even aware of PESCO. It is a major move with respect to Irish neutrality and it is a step away from what the EU should be doing at this time and in current political circumstances.

In my view, it should be moving towards more democracy, more accountability and more devolution to the national parliaments and not the opposite. I believe the move towards a mili- taristic agenda is the exact opposite of what the EU should be doing. It is the opposite of what the vast majority of EU citizens want to see happening.

The transnational lists proposal was part of that and shows a completely oblivious attitude to what citizens are looking for. They are not looking for representatives to represent 27 member states all at once. I and others present represent a constituency of 15 Irish counties. It is very hard to remain connected and engaged with the communities I am supposed to represent despite the huge amount of effort we put in to ensure we do. It is impossible to fathom a scenario where somebody could legitimately argue to represent people in eastern Germany or Latvia while at the same time representing the voters in Connemara, Inishowen or Carrickmacross.

Regarding PESCO and the EU budget, if we want to prevent the potential CAP cuts that the Commissioner has indicated may be coming down the line, an easy place to start would be to remove what is being proposed for the EU defence fund and ring-fence it for CAP and rural development.

Some of the important work taking place at European Parliament level, in which many members here have an interest, is the issue of corporate tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering. The European Parliament is in the process of setting up another committee fol- lowing on from the committee that was established on the Panama papers, called the Paradise Papers committee. As Irish representatives, we need to engage on this at a number of levels. Irrespective of whether members like it, we need to acknowledge that at an EU level and inter- nationally Ireland has gained a reputation as a facilitator of corporate tax avoidance.

We need to address two areas. One is the issue of tax sovereignty. Our party and all MEPs are on record as saying we will defend to the hilt the right of national parliaments to put in place their own tax rates and policies. The other is the issue of tax transparency and public country- by-country reporting. The two things are not the same. Sometimes Irish commentators argue that they are. It is possible to have maximum tax transparency while at the same time defending tax sovereignty.

I realise that I have gone on for longer than the Chairman might have wanted. I know there have been many debates at this committee, at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the

8 14 FEBRUARY 2018 Marine and in the House about the Mercosur trade agreement. Members need to be aware that Irish farmers - and I would argue the Irish domestic economy - are on the verge of being sold out by the , which has already reportedly increased the offer on beef, for example, to 99,000 tonnes. The Mercosur countries are looking for 200,000 tonnes. We could, should and must now demand that the Mercosur negotiations be brought to a close. I say this as a citizen more than anything else: we have already been treated abysmally in the way the Government has dealt with the CETA trade agreement and other trade agreements. However, the Mercosur deal is the most immediate threat. We should be united in calling for those nego- tiations to be stopped immediately on the basis that the Commission has advised us that there will be no Mercosur trade agreement without a significant offer of beef being on the table. With the damage that will cause to Irish agriculture along with the uncertainty as a result of Brexit, that alone is a basis for us to demand that the negotiations are brought to an end.

The Irish people have repeatedly let it be known that they want to be part of the European Union. Most recently we saw that in the vote in the North where they voted to remain. I also believe the Irish people have given plenty of messages that they want the EU to change. The two things are not contradictory. I hope we can work together to ensure that all of Ireland re- mains part of the European Union, but that we work together to ensure it is a better and more democratic European Union.

Chairman: Last, but by no means least, I call Mr. Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan, MEP.

Mr. Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: I apologise for being late. I managed to follow the earlier speakers thanks to technology.

I agree with Ms McGuinness, MEP, that engagement between MEPs and Oireachtas Mem- bers is essential. I have asked for this for some time. Perhaps it could be facilitated during green week because we get enough time off. I am delighted to see that is the case and I would like to see it happen more regularly. There is always something happening in what we do and it directly impacts on the citizens of the country, people whom the members of the committee also represent.

I work on the agriculture and rural affairs committee, which is very relevant to the constitu- ency I represent covering the midlands and the north west. I am also on the budget control committee and am a substitute on the environment committee. The budget control committee is a bit of bean-counter committee but it is probably the most interesting committee when one gets into it because we go through every last cent of the people’s money that is spent. Ireland is a net contributor. Given the enormity of the CAP budget and the agriculture and rural affairs budget, it is all the more important. We are now entering into the beginning of a debate as to how this money will be divided up.

I am a townie and have never lived on a farm in my life but bit by bit, the penny has dropped as to why the place where I live exists; it exists because we have farmers living outside the town. They are farmers who down the years paid people like my father to put in fitted cup- boards. They paid painters in the town to come out and paint their houses. Those farmers and their wives went in and got haircuts. The money was spread around. I know how important this is. At the moment we are talking about a development plan for Ireland and a development plan for rural Ireland; this is integral to it.

We are also talking about how Border areas will struggle because of Brexit. This is also integral to that debate because if we had listened the last time to the then Commissioner Cioloş

9 JEUA and had the deal that was done on CAP not been warped and twisted by our Government at the time, people in Leitrim would have got €11 million more per year from CAP and there would have been €29 million more per year for Donegal. There would have been less for the Queen and less for Larry Goodman, but we can get over that. We are now deciding whether we will make that same mistake again or whether we will, in the case of Leitrim, put €3,000 into the pockets of every man, woman and child over the course of the next CAP deal or whether we will put it into the wrong people’s hands.

People talk about pressure on the budget - there is particular pressure on the CAP budget. One obvious reason is Brexit because the UK is a massive net contributor. There is another reason for pressure on the CAP budget. The penny has dropped among many MEPs that it is going to the wrong people. Rather than arguing that it should go to the right people, many of these people are now saying we need to cut it. MEPs who represent urban areas come in and say this was meant to go to small farmers and was meant to make rural areas vibrant but it is not doing that. They are talking about cutting it on that basis. If it is cut - we will fight to ensure it is not cut - we know who to look at. We need to look at the people who have twisted and turned what was meant to be a payment for small farmers to keep people in family farms and instead left it in the hands of ranchers. We will do our best to ensure it is not cut.

When I went out there I thought I might have had a radical point of view that this money should be redistributed to small farmers. The good news is that even the people in ’s group, the EPP, agree hook, line and sinker that the money needs to go to the small farmer. Mr. Zeller, who is in the same group as Fine Gael, is on the budgetary control committee. He con- stantly harps on about how this must change. I am fairly definite that we will get a good deal for small farmers. At one of the last meetings I attended, made the point that we did not really succeed in the previous CAP negotiations. I am afraid she did not give herself and the MEPs who got the good deal the credit they deserved. The problem was that when it was brought home it was twisted and turned so that it ended up in the wrong hands. We need to ensure that does not happen again if we want rural Ireland to survive.

Another point of great importance - Mr. Carthy and others have mentioned it - is the Mer- cosur deal. We are apparently going to trade off our suckler farmers and beef industry so that our car industry can thrive. I am sorry, but where is our car industry? We do not have one. We are trading off something we have for something that we will never have and something we are not going to get. If the deal goes through, we will expect our farmers to compete. Our farmers have to explain the origin of their produce and where exactly it has been from the moment the sperm is delivered until a consumer eats the meat on his plate. Now, potentially, we will have to compete with people who farm on the basis that it is sufficient to know where the produce has been for the past three months. Obviously, traceability comes with costs. Costs reduce profit- ability and make it less feasible for people to farm where we come from. We have to stop this deal. As Mr. Carthy has said, they need beef on the table for this deal to go through. We need to say “No more” to this deal.

I wish to comment positively on the White Paper on the future of Europe. We are now, finally, debating it, but one would have to be concerned. When one sets up a timetable for something, one should stick to it. When the GAA sets up a timetable for the All-Ireland compe- tition, it takes place when it is meant to take place. It does not take place six months later. GAA officials do not come along and say that they did not have to bother telling those involved that it was not going to take place for six months. We were told in March last year by Jean-Claude Juncker that there would be a series of future of Europe debates throughout Europe between

10 14 FEBRUARY 2018 March and December and that the matter would brought to the Council and to us for discussion. He claimed there were thousands of debates but there were not. I looked and searched for them. I was obsessed looking for them because I know my future and the future of my children are at stake.

Now, finally, we are having the debates and that is good. As was said already, however, we were meant to be debating five options. However, before we got to debate them or before most people even knew there was a debate ongoing, the man who is meant to be leading us, Jean- Claude Juncker, had made up his mind already about a sixth option.

Obviously, there are some brilliant things done within Europe. I may be a sceptic in many areas but when it comes to agriculture I am not. Other important areas include full fiscal union, which potentially we could face and an end to our choice or ability to choose our corporation tax rate - that could be gone. We need a proper debate on that and we need to look at it.

We certainly need to look at defence. At the moment we are being railroaded down the road of something that is described by Federica Mogherini not as a European army but something even more ambitious. We now have socialists standing up in the European Parliament saying this should become our most important project. Food security is our most important project and it has to stay that way but we are pushing in the opposite direction. The Commissioner, Ms Federica Mogherini, continuously cites opinion polls in Europe suggesting support for going further into a European army-type system. If one looks for the information on the matter - at the same meetings where she talks about being open and transparent - one cannot find out what the results were for Ireland even though Ms Mogherini and the Commission have claimed we are all supportive of it. Maybe we are or maybe we are not. Certainly, I am not and I would like to know what the answer to that question is but we cannot find it. Earlier, I said that I am sceptical in certain areas. If we ask a question of the European Commission on agriculture, we get an answer. If we ask a question of Federica Mogherini, we do not get an answer.

We now have a high-level committee on fake news in the European Union. MEPs have a right to find out how the process is organised and how the appointments to these committees take place. I have a serious problem with the person appointed from Ireland. Committee mem- bers can find out for themselves who the person appointed from Ireland is - the information is publically available. I have attempted to find out how this process took place with the relevant Commissioner and Commission office. I have looked for an opportunity to express concern over who was appointed. We have not even got an answer. That is what I am at in the European Union and there is far more of it. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak.

Chairman: Thank you all very much. We will now go to our members. I know our mem- bers will keep it as concise as possible – we are over-running our time a little. I call Deputy Durkan. During your contribution, Deputy Durkan, we will change over in the Chair, as I ex- plained.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I welcome our guests and thank them for their dissertation. It is an interesting exchange of views at an interesting time. As we know, Europe is inhaling at the moment. We have to wait for it to exhale and we do not know what the outcome will be. We do not know whether Brexit will lead to the destruction of Europe. It could, in that it could undermine the whole structure of Europe. The UK could be the first to go. I strongly advise all and sundry that such an outcome would not be in the interests of this country, Europe, Britain, ironically, or the globe.

11 JEUA We should all recognise that those present are totally committed to the Irish economic en- tity on the island of Ireland. We have set that down from the beginning and there will be no watering down of that. It is injudicious to suggest from time to time that we do not believe what people say. If a person does not believe what another says to him, presumably, the person is expecting the comment to become a self-fulfilling prophesy and, as a result, there is no use having negotiations.

It is of the utmost importance that we maintain the stance we have had from the beginning, that is to say, the question as set down by the European negotiators and the Government at the beginning of the year and that we maintain it without variation. Of course, people will decide from time to time that we have reason not to believe it. If we sow that into the ether, then it becomes part of what the defence will use, the defence being the UK authorities. They will say the people did not believe them and will ask what one would expect. Then they will row away from it so they do not have to achieve any agreement.

The Single Market and customs union are of the utmost importance. We are operating as an island nation and that is the way the European negotiators have stated it will be. That is the way the British Government negotiators reluctantly admitted that it would be or how they hoped it would be but they then cast doubts upon the water, throwing bread upon the water, as it were, to try to undermine it. Of course they are going to do that - that is their negotiating position. Anyway, they must remember one thing: they decided to leave the European Union. They did not seek approval from anyone else. We, they and everyone else in the European Union are part of the Union. We all agreed to it. Several treaties were entered into incorporating what we have now as the European Union. We have a commitment to it.

Senator Terry Leyden took the Chair.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The original Brexiteer was here last week telling us about all the good things that could happen from being outside the Union and so on. Nigel Farage is known for many things but being a supporter of the European Union is not one of them. By his own admission, he spent 18 years working to undermine it. Interestingly - and it is symbolic of what has happened thus far - at the end of the day, when he was asked what would happen and what would replace what he had undermined, he did not know. None of the Brexiteers at the time or since has known either. They have shown no indication that they knew anything or had any alternative in mind. They had not and that is sad. It is easy to knock down something in place. It is easy to wreck and destroy. It is not so easy to come up with the alternatives. It is al- ways easy to throw away something but to put it together again and restructure it is not so easy.

We need to reiterate emphatically again and again that we stand for what we have said. We need to stand over the interdependence of the North and South on the island. The Single Market and the single entity must remain. Acting to the contrary will do irreparable economic damage to Northern Ireland and the South and, ultimately, to the European Union and the UK as well. I wish to emphasise, Vice Chairman-----

Vice Chairman: We are behind time at the moment.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I am doing my best.

Vice Chairman: You are not doing well enough.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I know that you are keen for me to say what I should say and I am trying to do that. 12 14 FEBRUARY 2018 Vice Chairman: Please do it as quickly as you can, Deputy.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: The time in which we live now begs all of us to be strongly supportive of our stance. Regardless of politics, we have to be strongly supportive of that stance. If we move away from it, we are in serious trouble.

I wish to acknowledge the situation of Irish fishing. There will be a problem in that sector and with the Common Agricultural Policy as well. They will be resolved. The CAP problem has to be resolved. There is a big population in Europe amounting to 500 million people and they have to eat. If somebody decides to trade that off against a car, people cannot eat the car no matter how hungry they are. That should not be done.

The security issue needs to be dealt with. We have become more dependent on our neigh- bours for security as time has passed and we cannot have it both ways. We need to enable our Defence Forces to be upgraded and trained in line with the best available in Europe, which would not be a breach of our neutrality. Alternatively, will we rely on the British Government to come to our aid in the case of a terrorist attack? I would not be happy about that. We need to recognise that, unfortunately, for security reasons, we need to upgrade our Defence Forces in order that they can understand their colleagues in Europe in the event of a security breach.

The stance adopted by the Taoiseach and Mr. Barnier in respect of the Border still stands and we should not presume that there will be any backing off from that. If we do back away from it, we will have made a serious negotiating error.

On the urban-rural divide, people tend to support their own bailiwicks. As matters progress, there is a great need for all European politicians to represent the people of Europe and not one sector against another, one village against the next or one country against another. They need to provide universal representation. We are either a European Union or we are not. If we want to go in different directions, we can do that but it will be at our own cost.

Vice Chairman: I want to go in a different direction. I am calling the next speaker.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I have four minutes left. I am sorry about that.

Vice Chairman: That is too long.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I know. I should not be allowed to talk at all but we will not go there.

Vice Chairman: The debate would not be complete without the Deputy.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I was going to finish on CAP reform before I was distracted. We should recognise that the Europe which will emerge in the future will, hopefully, be of our making and will not go in different directions to suit everybody. It should have a common bond with which all the people of Europe can have common cause. I thank the Vice Chairman for his interruption, which I very much appreciate.

Vice Chairman: I am trying to facilitate members and MEPs. I welcome the European Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly, to the Gallery. She will join us shortly. We have to conclude this session as soon as possible.

Deputy Seán Haughey: I will be as brief as possible because we do not want to keep the European Ombudsman waiting. We are anxious to hear what she has to say. I thank the MEPs

13 JEUA for attending. We will not get to have an exchange of views because we have had a series of statements. The committee needs to work on that for the future.

I will not address Brexit because it was dealt with by previous speakers. The committee has considered the future of Europe. We had a series of meetings and we are finalising a report. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy McEntee, has conducted a public consultation process. While something is happening, we all have to make a greater effort to engage with citizens regarding the future direction of Europe. Many politi- cians have made statements. President Macron and Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker have outlined their visions and the European Commission has put forward a series of options. From the point of view of balance, the EU is either a union of sovereign nation states or a federal united states of Europe. That covers a wide spectrum and we need to be tuned in to that debate. Most Irish people see it as a union of sovereign nation states but there is a move towards more integration. The Franco-German axis is reappearing, which is a threat to smaller nation states. These are fundamental issues about which we need to be conscious.

I have a question but the MEPs will not have an opportunity to answer it. The UK is leav- ing, regrettably. It was an ally on many of the key issues that Ireland faces in the EU, including the CAP, tax sovereignty, corporation tax rates, immigration and mandatory quotas, security and defence, Cohesion Funds, and the principle of subsidiarity. Cohesion Funds are important for central and eastern European member states and, therefore, we need to forge new alliances on theses issues now that the UK is going. I will not get a response to that but I have no doubt that our MEPs will take up the challenge in that regard.

Senator Paul Coghlan: I thank the MEPs for their interesting commentaries. The previous speaker did not want discuss Brexit but it is dominating all our thoughts, regardless whether we like it. I cannot fathom that Britain would countenance leaving the Union and a market of 500 million people without wanting what has become known as option A. While its represen- tatives say that Britain will leave the customs union and the Single Market, something similar will have to be negotiated, whatever it is called. Phase 1 of the negotiations has concluded and we will not let them off the hook on that. They signed up to all the rules, regulations, treaties and so on and legal obligations have to be met on leaving the Union as well as acceding to it. They will, presumably, have to be observed and complied with. What do the MEPs think is the bottom line? As Ms Clune, said, Ireland does not want to give up the short sea route between Dover and Calais because it is essential to us. Whatever happens, there will have to be regula- tory alignment, no matter what it is called.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I thank the MEPs for attending. There is a huge oppor- tunity cost for them to spend time here in light of their massive constituencies. I am sure they have plenty of work to do. It is good that everybody is wearing the same green jersey on Brexit as our Government, which has done a tremendous job so far. The representation we have in Europe has been excellent across the board.

On the future of Europe, the conversation that has begun, with public meetings being held throughout the country, is good. It is good to bring Europe to the people for good or bad. What- ever comes out of the process, let us hear it. Like Deputy Haughey, I would be interested in Ms McGuinness telling us about new allies as we move towards a new Europe. Clearly, we are losing a major ally and, therefore, we will have to sectionalise our allies with different allies on finance, agriculture, etc.

Ms Clune mentioned transport, which is a serious concern. A number of haulage compa- 14 14 FEBRUARY 2018 nies have mentioned to me that they have will difficulty crossing a third country in a post-Brexit world. I refer to the requirement on the European Investment Bank to support Ireland as new super highways to Europe will have to be developed to avoid crossing the UK. I do not know if I will get a response to that but I would be interested in hearing it.

Fisheries are extremely important. I will not discuss agriculture because, like Mr. Luke “Ming” Flanagan, I think milk comes in cartons and that is all I know about it.

The issue of Northern Ireland with respect to Brexit comes up all the time and we constantly hear that 56% of those in Northern Ireland who voted in the referendum opposed leaving the Union. On the one hand, we cannot talk about democracy while, on the other, rejecting it. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. As long as that remains the case, there is no way there will be a border in the Irish Sea. This will be a major problem because unionists will not accept it. It should be borne in mind that they sit in Westminster, a forum where national- ists have no voice. We cannot negotiate where we do not have a voice. It is as simple as that. I am sorry to bring it up because I have tremendous respect for the work that has been done by the nationalist politicians in Northern Ireland over the last 20 years or so to make the country as safe as it is and to make it so welcoming for anybody who wants to travel there from abroad. The truth is that unless people get up off their bums and start giving Northern Ireland a voice - outside, that is, of those of us in the Republic of Ireland who have been screaming to the high heavens - it will be hard to make progress. I know Mr. Carthy does not like hearing this but unless somebody goes to Westminster and starts representing the republican side of Ireland, we will end up with a hard border. I predicted that in June 2016 and people laughed at me but there is nobody laughing now. We are coming ever closer to a hard border on this island and that would be detrimental to the people of Northern Ireland. It is they who will suffer. I asked the unionists, and Mr. Carthy knows the answer to this. At the end of the day, Britain will not provide the level of financial support to Northern Ireland that the European Union has been providing. We really have to exercise the full democratic imperative in order to protect those citizens of Ireland who are geographically separated from their country by virtue of the fact that they are located in a place that is currently regarded as part of the United Kingdom. One hopes that will change in time but it is how matters stand.

PESCO continually comes up along with this nonsense about a European army. I hear to- day that perhaps we should be putting the money into the CAP. The CAP will not be worth a continental damn if we experience a serious cyber attack that grinds this country’s information technology system to a halt and leaves us in a situation where we are praying for security. It is not that long since a major cyber attack in the United Kingdom brought its entire health system down. That weekend, Ireland did not have anybody on duty in cyber security because we did not have the numbers to do it. Let us get away from the nonsense of a European army. PESCO is a menu of choices. We can pick what we want from it and avoid what we do not want. There is an article being published this weekend, I understand, that will explore the security of this country and the need for us to modernise our equipment. Ireland is a small country and, on its own, it cannot have the purchasing power that would be available under PESCO. If somebody is talking about a European army, I urge them to remember that this country is militarily non- aligned. It is not a neutral country. It is militarily non-aligned and we will not be changing our position short of a referendum of the people. I take grave exception to people trying to pretend that something different is happening.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: I am not a member of the committee but I always appreciate the opportunity to engage with and hear from MEPs because they are operating at the coalface.

15 JEUA Unfortunately, it seems we are not going to have the opportunity for an engagement today. I had a number of questions and will put them on record in any event. Perhaps the witnesses can provide answers at the next session.

I also want to refer to Senator Craughwell’s points, for the purposes of balance. He cannot admire people for pulling on the green jersey and then whip that jersey off in order to have a pop at those who adhere to a democratic imperative not to take their seats in Westminster. If we are going to talk about democratic imperatives, let us remember that core one. I will not hang on that issue for too long, however.

Ms Anderson referred to a number of the issues I want to raise. Other colleagues have men- tioned the issue of the Border. It seems to me that the cast-iron guarantees the Taoiseach may have got from Theresa May are much more precarious than they appeared to be a number of weeks ago. Do the MEPs want to expand on that? Is there merit in asking the Taoiseach, pub- licly and privately, to do more to ensure that those commitments from the British Government are honoured, particularly in light of what Ms Anderson outlined in respect of the previous form of British negotiation teams when it comes to Ireland?

One of the issues I have consistently raised, as my Seanad colleagues will be well aware, is that there are between 800,000 and 900,000 Irish and, therefore, EU citizens in the North. An Taoiseach has said those citizens will not be abandoned, a position I support fully. When Mr. Guy Verhofstadt was here, he also said that the EU citizenship of those of us who are going to be held hostage in a post-Brexit scenario will not be undermined or weakened in any way. Two questions flow from that. First, should one or more of the two additional MEP seats for Ireland be used to represent Irish citizens in the North, given that we did vote to remain in the EU, as Senator Craughwell said? Second, I have raised on a number of occasions the potential for the Government to put its money where its mouth is in terms of practical infrastructural service investment in the North, through something like the location of an Irish passport office in the Six Counties, particularly in view of the fact that last year alone there were over 82,000 applica- tions for passports from the North. I have also proposed the idea of a citizenship hub, a facility that would be dedicated to supporting citizens in the North to engage with the Government and, indeed, the EU structures regarding their rights and entitlements post-Brexit.

My concerns in the context of PESCO are not nonsense. They are very sincerely and legiti- mately held. PESCO moves us onto very unsavoury ground and has the potential to impinge upon Ireland’s neutral status. For example, while we can be very proud of the Defence Forces operations in the Mediterranean, which have a humanitarian focus, PESCO has the potential to shift us towards a much more militarised and, I believe, anti-immigrant and anti-asylum seeker status. Senator Craughwell is not here anymore. He should not simply dismiss the concerns that we and many other human rights, humanitarian and charitable organisations have in respect of PESCO, just because he disagrees. Sin é.

Vice Chairman: Although he is not speaking because of time restraints, Senator Richmond was chair of the committee in the Seanad that brought forward a report on Brexit and is very involved with and has a lot of interest in the issues involved. It is also welcome that the meeting is being broadcast live so that people can watch our deliberations. I welcome the MEPs and the Vice President of the European Parliament, Ms McGuinness, whom I meet regularly at COSAC meetings. We met recently in Sofia in Bulgaria. She plays a very important role in respect of liaison with all the parliaments. It is a very influential role and the more we have those contacts, the better. The UK was not represented at the last set of meetings in Sofia, which is unfortunate. It is a pity to see that they are moving out already. 16 14 FEBRUARY 2018 In the context of Brexit, we will have to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That is very evident from the statements today. It is moving very fast. The guarantee of free movement of people between the North and South and throughout the United Kingdom must be upheld. Irrespective of what the outcome will be, those are the fundamentals that were discussed at the start. The Good Friday Agreement, in all its facets, must also be guaranteed and honoured by the United Kingdom. That is vital. May I suggest that those extra two seats should, as Ms An- derson said, be located as close as possible to the Border? I am sure our MEPs from that region will agree with me.

The reality is that the text of December is a fudge and is not being put into law because there is no agreement. Let us be quite blunt. It is a most complicated situation whereby the DUP basically has a veto on the British Government. As long as it has that veto, there will be no great agreement in this regard and the talks are not far from collapse at this stage. There is certainly potential for destabilisation of the current British Government as well. The situation is very difficult. Ireland, North and South, will be the big loser. All we can say is that we hope for the best and hope there will be an agreement.

This dialogue could go on longer. I expect that the committee will be with the MEPs in Brussels in due course to follow up. I will ask Ms Guinness to respond briefly. I know we are not going to get answers on all of the points raised. I ask her to keep her response as short as possible. I am very conscious that the European Ombudsman is also here.

Ms Mairead McGuinness: I apologise, but it is important. The Vice Chairman said the text was a fudge and that it was not being put into law. Let me say, on behalf of the European Union, to the citizens who are listening, that it regards the text as an agreement. It is not a fudge. We believe it is an agreement which will be put into law.

Vice Chairman: What about the United Kingdom?

Ms Mairead McGuinness: As a global player and a major country, the United Kingdom will be mindful of the fact that if it reneges on an agreement with its EU partners, the world will be watching it. Every country is watching and if it misbehaves, it will be noted. Who would conclude a trade agreement with a country the word of which could not be taken as the truth?

I also caution those who are saying the budgetary outlook is bleak for the future. There is a danger that if we keep repeating that narrative, as Deputy Bernard J. Durkan stated, it will become real. We have to fight hard and are doing so to achieve an increase in the budget. Mem- ber states will have to put money into the pot. If we believe there is a future for the European Union, we have to fund it. I hope Ireland will be part of that battle.

There is democracy in Europe, despite people saying we need more of it. This is democ- racy in action. The proceedings of the committee are being broadcast live. We meet regularly. There is no harm in reminding ourselves when we are critical of the European Union, as many of us are, with what are we comparing it. Where on the globe do citizens have the freedoms that they enjoy, enjoy the rule of law and live a democracy that functions as well, despite its flaws, as the European Union? If we remember this in the battles about where it is and where it is going, it will at least put us on the one sheet in saying the European Union is worth defending because without it, we would all be much worse off, not only financially.

Vice Chairman: I hope Ms McGuinness’s optimism will be rewarded.

Ms Mairead McGuinness: My efforts will be. 17 JEUA Vice Chairman: I hope they will.

Mr. Matt Carthy: It is always good to see a Roscommon man in charge.

Mr. Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: I agree.

Mr. Matt Carthy: I will respond briefly to some of the points made.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked an important question about whether Brexit could lead to the destruction of the European Union. Obviously, we all hope it will not. The answer to the question lies in whether the rest of us will learn the lessons from it. It is true - it has been repeated ad nauseam - that in large part the Brexit vote result was caused by a xenophobic negative racist element which was epitomised by the Deputy’s good friend who was in Ireland.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Not mine.

Mr. Matt Carthy: Undoubtedly, people looked at the actions of the European Union in Greece and its refusal to heed other national democratic messages. We do not know the overall percentage who were disillusioned by the direction the European Union was taking in latter years, but we can assume that it was more than 3%, which was the difference between winning and losing in the referendum. I argue, therefore, that we need to learn the lessons.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan also stated we needed to make a decision on whether we were all moving in the same direction or in different directions on whether we should have European Union representatives across member states. The secret of the success of the European Union lies in the fact that we have the maturity to agree that there are areas in which we should all move forward together and also areas in which there are national priorities which will trump EU priorities and that national governments should have the ability and the freedom to decide what they shoould do in those instances. We need to be honest with ourselves in all matters.

In response to Senator Gerard P. Craughwell’s points about PESCO and whether it is a step- ping stone to an EU army, almost every other member state that has signed up to it refers to it as a stepping stone to an EU army, yet in Ireland we are supposed to expect that it is something different. We should be honest and say that is what it has been sold and championed as.

Obviously, I do not have time to deal with all of the other points made by the Senator, but I suggest that if President Higgins is to seek a second term, he should replay the comments made by the Senator and that he will not face much opposition in the ballot box.

My final statement is on the future of the European Union, the debates on which provide an opportunity. Thus far, they have not be capitalised. If they do not include space for critical keynote speeches by those who have a different view on issues of concern to citizens within the European Union such as membership of PESCO and trade, they will have been a missed opportunity.

On a positive note, I can speak on behalf of all Irish MEPs when I say we are in absolute agreement that the next speaker, the European Ombudsman, Ms O’Reilly, is doing a magnifi- cent job and that we are very proud of her. She is not afraid to be critical and stand up to the most powerful interests within the European institutions when required. That should be noted.

Vice Chairman: On St. Valentine’s Day it is nice to hear such comments.

Ms Martina Anderson: I will capture what has been said by Deputy Bernard J. Durkan, Ms

18 14 FEBRUARY 2018 Mairead McGuinness and others who are telling us that it is not a fudge, that it will be put into law and that the Irish Government will stand over the cast iron guarantees given in December, but I will also remind the committee that historically the British Government has a track record on reneging on every agreement it ever signed.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: We know that, too.

Ms Martina Anderson: The Deputy knows it; so do we. That is part of the problem we have in the North. It goes back to what Ms McGuinness stated about the reckless behaviour of the British Government on where it may be going and the damage it could do to us all, but I take on board and accept her statement that it will be put into law. Within it, it states there will be no diminution of rights. Therefore, it is about ensuring the rights and entitlements of the people of the North will be upheld. Fifty years after the civil rights campaign, it is the Irish Government that needs to ensure it will stand over those rights. We have had comments made on the issue of the passports. It is not just because someone holds an Irish passport. As a result of the Good Friday Agreement, some 1.8 million of us have been afforded the right to be British or Irish or both. That means that the rights of the people of the North have to be applied, regardless of whether someone holds an Irish passport. Without a doubt, we need passport offices in the North, but that is another subject matter.

The principle of consent was built into the Good Friday Agreement. Senator Gerard P. Craughwell talked about the people of the North being part of the United Kingdom. For the first time in the North, we have been given an opportunity to identify as Irish, to have our Irish citizenship recognised and to have the aspiration of Irish unity to be taken forward and ad- dressed in a Border poll. Let us remember that in April the European Council gave a signal to the people of Ireland when it stated that in the event of a Border poll being triggered under the Good Friday Agreement, it would mean that the North of Ireland would rejoin the European Union. Therefore, what we need is for the Irish Government to become a facilitator. Perhaps the Senator does not realise - I want everyone to know in case those listening do not realise it - that there is already a border in the Irish Sea. Animals, animal products, plants and plant produce are all checked at the port and airport in Belfast. I am not saying that border needs to be enhanced. I do not want to see a border between the North and the South or east to west, but let people realise that for decades there has been a border. We were able to tackle bluetongue on the island because we were able to work together on an all-island basis. One does not have to have new infrastructure put in place, but what can never happen and be accepted by anyone on the island is the re-emergence of a harder border. That cannot be tolerated. I accept that is something that is being said by everyone at this committee.

Vice Chairman: I call a former colleague of mine in the Seanad and at the Council of Eu- rope, Deirdre Clune, MEP.

Ms Deirdre Clune: I will make two points. On the points made about the agreement reached in December, I do not accept that there was a fudge. In fact, we, in the European Parliament, had our own resolution, of which the common travel area and the Good Friday Agreement formed parts, as well as the fact that there should be no border between the North and South. That was recognised by the European Parliament which will eventually agree to whatever arrangement is put in place between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. We take the issue seriously. I understand the European Commission and Mr. Barnier, who is heading its delegation, take very seriously the commitments given, to which the United Kingdom will be held. The groundwork has been done. The groundwork will have to be ac- knowledged and be part of whatever agreement is reached. We spoke about the budget but did 19 JEUA not deal with it enough. It will be very important. This debate will dominate our proceedings for the next few months as we decide where the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, from 2020 will go. Last week, Mario Draghi came to the Parliament. He said that in December 2016, he had predicted that the European economies would grow by 1.5% but in fact, they grew by 2.5% over 2017. We are in a positive period in which economies are growing across Europe. Our country is doing extremely well. The last time the MFF was put in place there was, unfor- tunately, a recession and that also should be borne in mind.

Vice Chairman: I am encouraged by Ms Clune’s enthusiasm.

Ms Deirdre Clune: I always have a positive outlook and I will continue in that vein.

Vice Chairman: The point is it takes two to tango and to make an agreement.

Mr. Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan: We will have to find the money from somewhere for future budgets in the European Union. We are net contributors and will have to increase our contri- bution. One of the factors taken into account in calculating the contribution is the size of our economy and our gross domestic product, GDP. We must remember that only a couple of years ago, we were described as having a system of leprechaun economics. While those leprechaun economic growths in GDP may not trickle down to the people, the cost to the State rises because our contribution goes up. We need to take that into account when we massage our figures on GDP unrealistically.

As far as fudge is concerned, I think the Vice Chairman is suggesting it might be on the British side. Maybe it would and will be but the idea that someone will be worried about not being able to make future trade agreements because they would not be trusted is complete and utter rubbish. The European Union and Ireland trade with China, which harvests the organs of people who do not agree with certain people. Germany sells tanks to Saudi Arabia, not to plough the fields in Yemen and not just for money but in return for votes to host the World Cup. There are no morals or fairness when it comes to trading or doing deals. There are more morals in hell.

Vice Chairman: I thank everyone for their participation. This was a good dialogue. I hope it will continue because these discussions will conclude very quickly but I hope we have an op- portunity to meet again. I am very impressed by the contributions of the MEPs and their grasp of the situation. It is very difficult to be a Member of the European Parliament because it is so large and they represent such big constituencies. I wish them well in their continued member- ship of the parliament.

Sitting suspended at 3.33 p.m. and resumed at 3.38 p.m.

Engagement with European Ombudsman

Vice Chairman: I welcome the European Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly. I always won- der why the office is not called “ombudsperson”. It should be changed. I find it uncomfortable, like “chairman”. Maybe it is something else Ms O’Reilly might achieve before the end of her term.

The committee had the opportunity to meet her this time last year in Brussels and it was a very rewarding engagement. The committee is interested in the work she has been doing on

20 14 FEBRUARY 2018 transparency and in particular a case that she opened on transparency in the Council of the Eu- ropean Union, which examines the legislative process. Separately, the Dutch Parliament has also been considering transparency. This committee is considering it as well. Only yesterday, Ms O’Reilly made recommendations following almost a year of work with inquiry and public consultation. The published recommendations were circulated to all members of the commit- tee yesterday but they may not have had a chance to read them in detail. The timing of today’s engagement is very helpful.

Most of our engagement today will focus on transparency in the Council but if Ms O’Reilly has the time, the committee will also be interested in other areas of her work. When the com- mittee was in Brussels the Brexit negotiations were at an early stage and, considering how important they are for citizens, she strongly advocated for transparency. Her work has never been so vital as it is with the negotiations that are under way at present. We are delighted that, as an Irish person, Ms O’Reilly holds that position. I was there when you were campaigning and successfully won the election. It is one of the few prestigious positions in the European Union to which a person is elected by the Parliament, not appointed. It is a great achievement for you and for Ireland.

Before we begin, I must remind everybody of the rules on privilege. You are all aware of them but for legal purposes it is necessary to read them out. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official 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 joint committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a 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 they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Ms O’Reilly will be aware of all this so it was probably unnecessary. I invite her to begin.

Ms Emily O’Reilly: I thank you, Vice Chairman, and the members for the warm welcome. I am pleased to be in Leinster House again and to have the opportunity to address members on an issue that goes to the heart of the current challenges facing the EU, which the members have been discussing with the MEPs. I am aware that the committee has invested a considerable amount of time over the past year to hearing from experts and assessing the current delibera- tions on the future of Europe. While they may not feature on the list of more high-profile insti- tutional reforms currently under discussion, it would be a mistake not to consider democratic accountability and transparency reforms as priorities as we seek to respond to the current public uncertainty about the EU.

Laws that affect people’s daily lives should be drawn up in a manner that is as transparent as possible. This is essential for enabling meaningful public scrutiny of, and thus account- ability for, those laws. More transparent lawmaking is central to the democratic legitimacy of our institutions and, at a more fundamental level, to responding to the current crisis of public confidence in democratic institutions, whether at EU level or in the member states. Overall, despite what some may assume, the EU administration has higher ethical and transparency stan- dards than the administrations of most member states. For example, very few member states have a lobbyist register as the EU does, Ireland being a commendable exception. Few national 21 JEUA Ministers in Europe publish details of their travel expenses, as the European Commission has just recently agreed to do. The Commission and important EU agencies such as the European Medicines Agency have also made commendable strides in recent years in opening up their pro- cesses and practices to public scrutiny. Matters of great public interest, such as EU trade deals and the results of clinical trials on medicines, are now much more transparent than they were previously. As I have frequently said, the world has not stopped turning as a result.

That said, it is clear that the Council of the EU, where the national governments are repre- sented, is not a star pupil among the institutions when it comes to transparency and accounting for its decisions. Given its crucial role in the EU’s lawmaking process, I believe this must be addressed. That is what motivated my decision to launch a strategic inquiry last year into the transparency and accountability of the Council. On the basis of that inquiry, this week I issued a series of recommendations.

When the Council formally adopts EU laws, meetings and discussions of the Ministers on the draft laws are public. However, before the Council reaches a formal position, preparatory discussions will have taken place in some of the more than 150 committees and working par- ties in the Council. It is at this level that not only do the nuts and bolts of the legislative work take place but it is also where legislative decisions are occasionally made. Most of the changes to draft laws are proposed and compromises between member states are sought at this stage, before Ministers adopt a final position. Unlike Council meetings, these preparatory bodies of ambassadors and civil servants do not meet in public. As such, the only way to follow their discussions on legislation is through whatever records exist of those discussions. This requires, first, that legislative discussions in preparatory bodies be documented and, second, that such documents are accessible in an easy and timely manner. Both of these factors are essential for facilitating public scrutiny of the legislative work in these bodies.

The national representatives who sit on these Council bodies are democratically account- able to the national parliaments and to citizens of their member states, in theory. However, in order for the public to be able to hold governments to account for the decisions they make on EU laws, they need to know how their governments positioned themselves in the legislative process. This crucial piece of the process is currently generally lacking. As part of my inquiry, we carried out a public consultation last year. This consultation yielded some highly relevant responses, including from the Dutch and UK Parliaments, that have helped fine-tune the out- standing issues. On the basis of this, I have made a series of recommendations and suggestions to the Council.

The Council secretariat is clearly aware of its deficiencies in this area and has certainly made some welcome progress, not least by introducing a new internal recording system in November 2016. While this is an internal register, the existence of such a system should help provide a greater incentive comprehensively to record and document all legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies. At present, it appears there is no uniform approach to reporting and documenting the legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies. The Council also takes a selective approach to how it discloses the documents that do exist. My recommendations and suggestions to the Council seek to ensure these issues are addressed.

Much of this can seem rather abstract or removed from the stuff of daily political life. How- ever, all of us are aware of the practice by which member state governments sometimes criticise decisions taken in Brussels to their domestic audience when, very often, during the legislative process in Brussels they had supported or shaped the very decision they then criticise. System- atically recording the identity of member states expressing positions in the preparatory bodies, 22 14 FEBRUARY 2018 and proactively disclosing these records, would go some way to addressing this problem. I am aware of the challenges this may pose when the diplomatic impulse is towards arriving at a con- sensus with the minimum of fuss but the price of that may be to continue to feed an inaccurate view of how EU lawmaking is actually carried out, and to allow some member state govern- ments to continue to perpetuate the stigmatisation of the so-called faceless Brussels bureaucrat. My hope is that, by addressing the opaque nature of lawmaking in the Council, my inquiry will help to encourage all EU governments to defend democratically decided EU legislation in the public interest in the future. As a result, I hope the Council responds positively to the recom- mendations I set out this week.

Before I conclude, I wish to mention two other pieces of work in which my office is cur- rently engaged. Brexit is a huge issue for this country and for the EU more widely. Early last year, I wrote to both the European Commission and the Council of the EU encouraging them to be as transparent as possible in the Brexit negotiations. It is important that citizens and national parliaments can follow this crucial process which will affect the lives of millions, especially on this island. Thankfully, the EU has adopted a progressive stance to publishing all important documents during the negotiations, including the EU guidelines, negotiating directives and po- sition papers. Unfortunately, the UK side has not been seen to be as transparent.

Also recently, following a year-long inquiry based on a complaint from Denmark, I made a recommendation to the European Central Bank, ECB, about its involvement with the Wash- ington DC-based so-called Group of Thirty. Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, is a member of this group, which is a private group of 30 senior bankers, public officials and academics. It holds two private meetings per year and includes representatives of some global banks which the ECB supervises as part of its banking supervision mandate. My main recommendation was that the President, Mr. Draghi, suspend his membership of this group until he leaves office, in order to protect the ECB from any perception that its independence could be compromised. I also recommended that no future executive board members become members of the Group of Thirty. I expect the response of the ECB in April.

Finally, I thank the committee for its support in my role as European Ombudsman and also the Irish MEPs who have been consistently supportive of my work in the European Parliament.

Vice Chairman: I thank Ms O’Reilly. I also welcome Mr. Aidan O’Sullivan who is accom- panying Ms O’Reilly at today’s meeting. The Chairman, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae was here earlier but is in the Dáil now. He sends his apologies for having to leave but he had a special notice question.

Deputy Seán Haughey: I thank Ms Emily O’Reilly for coming before the meeting. I think it was last year that she met members of the committee in Brussels and was very informative about the details of her work then. I welcome her more recent recommendations which all of us will support. We live in an age of openness, transparency and accountability. I will be devil’s advocate for a moment. Through the years, European or even UK diplomacy involved wheeling and dealing and smoke-filled rooms, quiet diplomacy. Is Ms O’Reilly satisfied that as we move to this more open and transparent system it will not hinder the objective of getting an outcome in terms of a deal or solution? It is mostly a philosophical question. I support the work that Ms O’Reilly does and the objectives she has outlined but will it hinder the Council’s work in any way?

Another question which is not entirely related to Ms O’Reilly’s work concerns a general issue in which she will be interested, namely the rise of illiberal tendencies in the European 23 JEUA Union, in countries such as Poland, Hungary and so on in terms of the freedom of the press, the appointment of judges and so forth. There are threats to European values and democratic norms. Is Ms O’Reilly concerned about that or does she feel that the EU can deal with that through its rules, mechanisms and so forth? In the course of her own experience, has Ms O’Reilly noticed a rise of such illiberal tendencies among the people she mixes with in Brussels, for instance? Is it something that we should be concerned about?

Senator Paul Coghlan: I thank Ms O’Reilly for her very interesting presentation. She is doing important work. She is critical of the Council, probably rightly. How has she found the Commission and other bodies? Which of them occupy more of her time or which are slightly more difficult to deal with? Is there a culture of cover-up, although I hesitate to use that term? They do not wish to release information. Perhaps it is natural or is human nature when certain select bodies get together. Mario Draghi has not formally reacted yet but I would be very inter- ested to know if Ms O’Reilly has had any feedback on that recommendation.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I welcome the Ombudsman and thank her for her presenta- tion.

I agree that transparency is hugely important. If one is dealing with colleagues on an inter- national or European level, it is always good to know their hidden thoughts, and whether the views they express in one particular arena are the same as those they have expressed secretly or might be influencing things in a different direction at home. I am particularly interested in the European Medicines Agency. We have had some grief over the cost of medicines. I have com- plained for a long time that Ireland does not seem able to avail of the benefits of a 500 million- people market in relation to the cost of medicines, particularly in relation to trial medicines, new discoveries and orphan medicines, all of which has caused severe problems whereby the manufacturers sell the medicines at an agreed price until they become accepted and established when they then change the pricing structure. In recent days, the Minister has made arrange- ments with some of the smaller countries in the EU in an effort to bring about some improve- ment in the area.

It is very important for us in Ireland, but it is equally important for every country in the EU. Every state in the EU, big or small - there is no difference is entitled to be able to buy their medicines at a price that reflects the type of market in which we live. After all, if we were not members of the EU, presumably we would not get medicine at all or we would do so at only a particular pricing structure. There is still a tendency to do that. I strongly support Ms O’Reilly’s activities in that area and hope there will be more of it. A huge benefit accrues to all member states across the EU from achieving a result where medicines are priced within an acceptable range.

I wish Ms O’Sullivan well in the area of Brexit. In the matter of transparency, Ms O’Sullivan will have to get into what people have in their minds as well as their documents and their poli- cies. I know that she is well capable of doing that. Any good ombudsman or journalist knows that it is crucially important in current circumstances to know where the other side is coming from in the negotiations that are now taking place. It is not on this meeting’s agenda, but there has been considerable discussion about tax justice recently and the 12.5% corporation tax. Very powerful people in Europe with powerful associations have concluded that it must be dismantled or else we must collect taxes on profits earned in other jurisdictions, some of which are in Europe. I strongly oppose that. It has the potential to do us considerable damage. Last week, an international aid organisation was opining on this along side a major, multi-billion dollar international investment house. I do not know what the association is between the two; 24 14 FEBRUARY 2018 it is somewhere in the back of my mind that they appeared to complement each other in their goal of destroying what is seen as being an advantage to Ireland. Incidentally, I am in favour of equality of taxation, I have no difficulty whatever with that; where I do have difficulty is if it comes in under a guise of something else, which is to discourage foreign direct investment in this particular country.

Senator Neale Richmond: I appreciate the opportunity to engage with Ms O’Reilly this afternoon. I am also delighted to welcome my old sparring partner Mr. Aidan O’Sullivan to the committee.

My colleagues have already mentioned Brexit so I will step away from the issue, for once, but I commend Ms O’Reilly on her efforts to ensure that the European side is as transparent as possible. It is an issue that she has raised with us in Brussels long before the negotiations. It has been heartening to see it rolled out. I wish that the UK side was as transparent, perhaps among each other as well as with the European side.

I want to raise three areas. The first may link into the future of Europe, but generally feeds into the post-Brexit scenario, with trade negotiations and discussions. I was an outspoken sup- porter of both TTIP and CETA, which I felt were both great trade deals. I think CETA will be excellent for the European Union. One of the main reasons TTIP stalled, apart from the change in the political direction of the United States, was the mass opposition which was bred by the idea that it was being done in secret. When I had the trade portfolio in the EU committee of the regions, I looked at the TTIP negotiation documents. I went to a basement in the Berlaymont and had to surrender my mobile phone. I was writing a report on that from the EU side. It set a really bad tone for a process that I thought was very worthwhile. CETA was exactly the same. The opposition lobby pushed those arguments. If we are looking at new trade deals with Ma- laysia, Vietnam, Australasia - Mercosur is particularly important for this island - I hope that the ombudsman’s office is beefed up and is allowed to play the role that it is there to do. I really have high hopes for the Office of the European Ombudsman.

An area I would like to discuss is the issue of lobbying. I have taken a major interest in the lobbyist register and other measures we have taken in the State. I wonder if there is scope for an EU-wide lobbying register, so that it is not left to the individual member state. I will be frank, many of my friends are lobbyists. When one works in politics, lobbying is an industry that one ends up going into. Who knows, someday I could be forced into it, depending on the will of the people of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown? If an Irish MEP is being lobbied in Brussels by a third party from another member state, there is huge confusion on where responsibility for that lies. Is that lobbying in Belgium, or is it lobbying in Ireland or is it lobbying by a third party lobbyist? There is a lack of clarity and there are too many discrepancies between the member states to allow it to be efficient. Is there a way to simplify it? I know I possibly may be opening a can of worms. Brussels, as a city has the highest number of lobbyists in the world, just short of Washington. It is a difficult area but in order for politics to continue in the best way possible we need the highest level of transparency in our lobbyists. It should not be a black mark for an individual to say I am lobbyist. One does not know what an individual lobbying for. The vast majority of lobbyists are doing it in a very benevolent manner and they are trying to aid the legislative process. More rules and a clearer process make it easier not just for the lobbyists but in our parlance, the designated public officeholders and officials, such as all of us who are on this side of the room and indeed Ms O’Reilly as well.

I want to raise the issue of political funding and the role of outside bodies in the domestic affairs of individual member states. I will give two examples that are unique to Ireland, first our 25 JEUA upcoming referendum on whether to repeal the eighth amendment to the Constitution, Article 40.3.3o. Both sides of the campaign have raised really valid concerns about outside funding coming into the campaign to support campaign groups, be they NGOs or groups that have been just set up for this campaign. I raised the matter on the floor of the Seanad in the context that I received ten separate Facebook advertisements from campaigns seeking to retain the eighth amendment, supposedly from ten separate groups, even though their imagery, language and content was identical. How do we peel that back; what is the single source for that? Where is the funding coming from? The exact same applies to those who are seeking to repeal the eighth amendment. Let me declare publicly I believe in repealing the eighth amendment. There are legitimate concerns about outside funding from the US or other EU funding of certain bodies in this country. Does the European Ombudsman have a role in that area to make sure that it is fair and transparent and that the referendum can be held with the highest level of integrity?

My second point relates to direct political funding. Last week the European grouping for Freedom and Direct Democracy held an event calling for an Irexit, a damp squib in the end. The EFDD group in the European Parliament has no Irish members. No Irish political party is a constituent member, either of their European parliamentary group or their Europe-wide politi- cal family. All of us on this side happen to be members of the Fine Gael Party and we are all members of the European People’s Party, EPP. It states that on our membership card therefore when the EPP holds events in Ireland, such as the study days with our MEPs or any campaign- ing for example on the Lisbon referendum or the fiscal stability, it does so through its member party and we pay a membership fee. What distinguishes any EU political family from member state parties or groupings in the European Parliament and what rights or responsibilities do they have if they are going to act in a member state where they do not have actual constituted member parties? The only member state in which the EPP does not have a member party is the United Kingdom. Could it have launched a campaign on the referendum on Brexit and run an EPP campaign? Could we as a member of the EPP have launched a campaign on Brexit during the referendum? Could we start holding public meetings and using EU funds, which is what the EFDD has, to pursue a political agenda in another member state? I welcome debate on Ireland’s future in the European Union but I question the position of British MEPs and why European funding is going to a group that has no Irish members and being used to stimulate that debate. Is the EFDD doing so within the rules? Is it an area in which there needs to be more clarity, and what role can the Office of the European Ombudsman take in that?

Vice Chairman: In the interest of balance, there are other members present who are against the repeal of the eighth amendment.

Senator Neale Richmond: I understand that.

Vice Chairman: This is a live broadcast and as Vice Chairman I want to ensure this debate is balanced and both sides are heard.

Senator Neale Richmond: I wanted to put the issue in context and I gave examples from both sides.

Vice Chairman: I accept that, Senator Richmond. As Vice Chairman I want to bring the question of balance into the debate. I am not asking members to discuss this issue. There are other voices who are absolutely against the repeal of the eighth amendment.

Deputy Colm Brophy: Some of my points have been raised already, so I will not go over them again. I would like to tease one point out further. There is a fundamental difference be-

26 14 FEBRUARY 2018 tween a sovereign state and a national parliament legislating in a particular way. The European Union, which is a confederation of national states, is engaging in the legislative process that it has put together. I welcome a lot of the work that the Ms O’Reilly has gone into around this because I have always advocated as a passionate pro-European that one of the most significant problems we have is the way in which national governments will consistently blame the Euro- pean Union or a faceless bureaucrat in the European Commission for some piece of legislation that they do not like, whereas if it is a project that has received funding, it will be the national government’s success when the funded project is completed.

What worries me - and I would be interested to learn how the European Ombudsman has looked at this - is that as much failure as there is in the process of a closed door discussion between sovereign governments trying to harmonise their position, it has by and large deliv- ered a lot of things which have significantly benefited Europe and Ireland during our period of membership of the European Union. If we go down the path of a far more open and transparent process at that stage, has the European Ombudsman considered what the repercussions could be in terms of member states effectively taking the bit of the process that they do not want to be made public outside of that structure, having private sidebar conversations and dealing off the official agenda, so that we actually end up knowing less about what is happening? I would hope that Ireland would find it perfectly okay to operate in an open and transparent way but I have no doubt that there would be other member states where that would be very alien to their process of operating. What would worry me is that in adjusting the current process we could end up with a worse process, where more of the actual initial stages of putting together legisla- tion take place in a completely untransparent way. Has Ms O’Reilly looked at that and how does she think some of the processes she wants to engage in will ensure that does not happen?

Senator John Dolan: I am very happy to have the opportunity to welcome the European Ombudsman to this committee. Interestingly enough I was in the Seanad this morning dealing with the progress of a report called Too Old to be Elderly and the mobility allowance. I had the support of the Leas-Chathaoirleach, who was chairing that session.

Deputy Seán Haughey spoke about issues in Hungary, Poland and other countries. I have a particular interest in people with disabilities, of whom there are 80 million across the European Union. The experiences and expectations are very different in member states. I am familiar with this from my own work, and I know the European Ombudsman would have some sense of this from her involvement with the various European disability organisations and the European social platform. There are real concerns about the growth and the development of civil society groups, but my major issue is with the groups related to disability.

Ms O’Reilly’s particular work is about ensuring that European institutions are more effec- tive, transparent and open, as well as protecting people’s fundamental rights. Will she comment on the role that civil society organisations can play in member states given the right environ- ment? From talking to colleagues in certain member states, I know they feel quite vulnerable trying to do their advocacy work and that they are being watched critically. A strong civil society movement, where people get organised, involved and criticise their governments, is important as part of one of the bedrocks of developing a strong, cohesive and socially progres- sive European project.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae resumed the Chair.

Ms Emily O’Reilly: I understand the arguments presented by Deputies Haughey and Bro- phy about how good legislation has been done through a process which is less than transparent 27 JEUA or, indeed, accountable at European Council level. Deputy Haughey asked whether we would be able to get much of this work done if everything was out there and there was not this room for a diplomatic safe space. The problem is that the current process does not match the rights in the European treaty for citizens to see how legislation has been processed. In a way, the prob- lem is that they are using the diplomatic processes we are accustomed to in the areas of defence, foreign affairs or international relations in a legislative process.

The EU cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, it cannot decry populism, along with those who blame Brussels for everything and give a distorted view of how the EU legislates, while insisting on using a process which does not allow for full transparency or for the sort of accountability one gets in the Oireachtas or other member state parliaments and governments. When one is trying to get 28 member states to agree on non-sensitive issues, their positions can be recorded and there is not a problem. On sensitive issues, however, it is a problem and one can understand the impulse of keeping one’s hands across one’s homework, if one likes, until one gets consensus and the issue across the line. If the price for that is that Eurosceptics, as well as those who are anti-EU, can claim that proves we are being ruled by undemocratic and faceless bureaucrats and the EU does not afford citizens the right to have full accountability for what is done in their name and for them, then that is a problem.

There is also an issue of political maturity. Obviously, the impulse in many member states, as well as at EU and Council levels, would be to get these things through with the minimum of fuss. People are accustomed to, and therefore expect there to be, argument and debate. People are also accustomed to political parties and groupings making compromises. According to the treaty and various rulings made by the European Court of Justice, that is the way it is supposed to happen at EU level, even though the difficulties which the Deputies spoke about can arise. There was an interesting court case in 2012, when a transparency NGO, Access Info Europe, sought to get records of member state positions on, curiously enough, the EU transparency reg- ulation. The European Court of Justice agreed that records of member state positions should be made publicly available and as soon as possible. What happened then? The Council accepted this, meaning any member state positions which were actually recorded would be released. However, they now simply do not record them in many instances. There is a consensus, nod of the head or an informal agreement on a particular matter. If a record does not exist, then it cannot be accessed.

The Council has three months to deliberate on my proposals. Obviously, I will be inter- ested, and I am sure other member state parliaments will be interested, in what position it takes. As an ombudsman, if I have difficult recommendations to get across the line, it can be hard to do so if mine is the only voice. All members of the committee will have observed, however, a head of steam is building up around this. There have been calls from certain member states, the Dutch in particular, as well as civil society and the European Parliament, for the Council to become more open. As we move towards the 2019 European Parliament elections, and as the debate on the future of Europe becomes more intense, this will be an issue.

On the comments I made in my investigation and here earlier, blaming Brussels has led to many bad things. We might as well try something else.

Hungary and Poland are difficult issues for the EU. The EU has soft power and has been try- ing to use initiatives and dialogue to have certain member states, which seem to be rolling back democratic norms and the rule of law, to heed what it is saying and bring their value systems in line with what they are supposed to accept by virtue of being members of the Union. It is difficult. We have seen what has happened in Poland. The European Commission’s First Vice 28 14 FEBRUARY 2018 President, , has done much negotiating with the Polish Government and we will see what happens. People are not as engaged with this as much as they might be about Brexit or migration. However, it goes to the core of what the EU is meant to be about. If certain member states are not accepting the foundational basis of the EU, then that is a big problem. I do not believe any of us have the answers to that. We have to continue to support the ombuds- men in those countries, as well as civil society groups as much as we can.

On Senator Coghlan’s question on the culture of cover-up, I do not find one. All of the in- stitutions and agencies have become much more transparent over the past several years. Curi- ously enough, social media has played a large part in that, plus a generation growing up with high expectations of transparency. I do not believe they can resist that.

The President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, will respond to me in April on whether he will suspend his membership of the G30 until he leaves office in October 2019. I am hoping he will respond positively. I have had several cases with the European Central Bank. It has always collaborated well and has made all of its processes much more open as a result. I am hoping for a positive response.

On Deputy Durkan’s questions about the European Medicines Agency, I remember back in 1982, when I was working in the Sunday Tribune, doing a two-page article on drugs pricing and generic drugs. It is still a significant problem. Being home over the past few days, I have lis- tened to the conversation taking place on the Joe Duffy radio programme about the withdrawal of a certain drug. Whatever the ins and outs of it, I was struck by the human stories, the suffer- ing the people affected are going through and their belief that this particular drug was helping them to tolerate almost intolerable situations. The issue of pricing is also important because a number of people who spoke were able to point to the price of that drug in Northern Ireland but also in the US. A lot of work is being done at European level in the context of harmonising these issues. That is important because if the EU is to be for citizens, I cannot think of any more important areas in respect of which it should for the citizens than those of health and, as Senator Dolan mentioned, disability.

Regarding the trade negotiations and TTIP, as members are aware, we did a lot of work with the Commission regarding making the talks far more open. In fairness to the Commission, it has really transformed its transparency policy on that. I think the Commission was quite stunned by the level of engagement regarding the TTIP negotiations and realised that times have moved on, the rules of the game have changed and it could no longer do things behind closed doors and had to transform the way in which it did business. As was rightly noted, the TTIP talks are stalled at the moment but last year, the Commission set out its five principles of trade negotiations and for the first time, one of them was transparency. It is true even in the way it has conducted itself with regard to Brexit. I know there are political reasons behind the transparency as well but an awful lot is out there. It is still early days. When we really get down to the hard negotiation about the future relationship between the UK and the EU, we will see the limits of transparency.

I forgot to mention a point about Council transparency. If we look hard enough, we will be able to track a particular regulation or a particular player who is putting down amendments and so on. A lot of it is down there. If one knows the right people within a particular working group or a particular ambassador, one can get the information. In a sense, that creates a playing field that is not level because a well-resourced lobbyist or global corporation in Brussels will be able to afford to send people out to do nothing but track the trajectory of a particular regulation 24-7. In a sense, this gives privileged access to people while not allowing ordinary members of the 29 JEUA public or civil society who would not be as well resourced to have their say.

With regard to the lobbying register, I agree that there is huge unevenness across member states. Ireland is very often talked about as a model in the context of its lobbying register. When people are speculating or talking about the improvements that could be made at EU level or within member states, they often point to the Irish register. I have tried to interest my member state colleagues in the issue of lobbying transparency. Some are very engaged with it because they recognise it as an issue and recognise the role lobbying can play in the making of legislation. Obviously, a piece of legislation is the sum total of every influence brought to bear on it. Other countries do not think it is a big deal and have a system of revolving doors where people move very rapidly from public service or politics to big industry and often back again. Some member states do not see that there is a problem with this. If one examines the Volk- swagen scandal, the role lobbying played in that and the revolving door issue, one can see that people are increasingly waking up to why this is important. I think we will see developments in this area. I try to raise awareness of this issue at every opportunity, whether it be by dint of a complaint or through an investigation on my own initiative.

On disability rights, I think the Senator and I were both at the meeting at the European Par- liament where people with disabilities from across member states came together in plenary. It was quite a remarkable session. I had been to one or two of those previously. What I found really interesting, not just as European Ombudsman but as a citizen and human being, is that when one is in a room where everybody present has some kind of disability, be it visual or a physical incapacity, and is attempting to do what all of us take for granted every day of the week. When one sees the challenges they face, even in a very well-resourced place like the Eu- ropean Parliament building, it really does bring home to one the challenges that remain. I think Ireland is about to ratify the convention, or we hope it will, which is very good. It has been de- layed. I think we are one of only two countries that have not ratified it. Are we the last country?

Senator John Dolan: The last one.

Ms Emily O’Reilly: We are down to the last one.

Senator John Dolan: When the UK leaves, we will still be the last.

Ms Emily O’Reilly: I know that very hard work has been done on this, particularly by the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath. Obviously, civil society has a huge role to play in this. There is no doubt about that. One of the more disturbing things about Hungary and Poland has been the attacks on civil society. It is classic stuff. Anybody who tries to challenge any part of the ruling orthodoxy is seen and depicted as an enemy of the people. This has particularly affected civil society groupings.

I am certainly not going to give my tuppence worth regarding the referendum on repealing the eighth amendment - been there, done that. Obviously, as a citizen and a woman, I look at it very carefully. I wrote extensively on the subject as a journalist in the 1980s when the original referendum took place. I also wrote a book about what had happened. It is very interesting for me to see the debate for a new generation. Some things have not changed while others have. It is a referendum and everybody will have their say. With regard to outside funding, I did follow a debate - not one relating to this referendum but one relating to the marriage equality referendum when there was an argument between Amnesty International and the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, with regard to money received by Amnesty International. If there is an element to it involving an EU body, conceivably, there may be some role for me. I

30 14 FEBRUARY 2018 cannot see it at the moment. Unless I am mistaken, SIPO would deal with those matters. The rules are there. Obviously, decisions will be made - whether by SIPO or through the courts - as to what is legitimate.

Regarding the questions about politicians from other countries coming in and they may not be members of a grouping that has Irish members, I assume it is valid for anybody to come in and be able to speak. I think Senator Richmond was referring to Nigel Farage and some people who came here the past week or two weeks ago.

Senator Neale Richmond: I was talking about funding as opposed to the individuals.

Ms Emily O’Reilly: Obviously, if there is an issue with funding and if an EU institution is not dealing with it administratively, as it should, theoretically, a complaint could be made to me but it is not something I have dealt with, although I am aware of the matters. I think I have pretty much covered most of the questions.

Chairman: First, I apologise for having to leave but I had to go to the Dáil Chamber. I thank Senator Leyden, our Vice Chairman, for taking over. It is like the MEPs coming here earlier today. In respect of any time Ms O’Reilly takes time out of her busy schedule to come before the committee to hear the concerns members have and get a feeling for what is hap- pening on the ground and the issues of concern we face on a daily basis as politicians, I know she is very much in tune with what is happening here all the time politically, nationally and internationally. She is really on top of her game, which is very important because we are the voice from the ground up. Many of the issues that reach the ombudsman’s desk have come to us through our constituencies and work already. I gave five years here, on the Joint Commit- tee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. Many of those cases, over the years, had been to the ombudsman. It is important that we work together because, at the end of the day, it is like the matter of the Versatis patches over the last weeks. The agony that people are going through is a matter that I raised in the Dáil today during Leaders’ Questions because issues like that affect people. At the end of the day, with the ombudsman in her role and us in our role, we help people, organisations, groups and individuals. Some people look down their noses at politicians when they see and hear them talking about and raising individual cases. There is nothing wrong with that and no need to be ashamed about dealing with an individual and his or her problem if one is elected or is in the role of someone such as Ms Emily O’Reilly. That is what we are supposed to do. We are advocates. We are there to speak for people who cannot speak for themselves. One thing I get great satisfaction from, which I presume the ombudsman would be interested in hearing, is that late on a Monday night, I can be in a quiet country pub, meeting people, or in a cold community centre, talking to people about a particular issue. The following day, I can stand up in the Dáil and face a Minister who might have direct responsibil- ity for that issue, or the Taoiseach, say that I met an individual somewhere last night and raise that person’s problem. That is what democracy is about. Sometimes, journalists in particular have a hang-up about that. They call it clientelism, parochial or parish-pump politics. We have to listen to all this nonsense but, in the end, that is what we are supposed to do. We are national politicians who are elected locally. We have to start somewhere and that is where we start. I look forward, for as long as we are there, to working with the ombudsman and her office. We all seek to do our best for people.

I thank the ombudsman. I will be looking back on the proceedings because I will be able to read the questions that were asked. I thank Senator Terry Leyden and all members for their contributions. Does Senator Dolan want to come back in? We are wrapping up, so he can speak now. 31 JEUA Senator John Dolan: The ombudsman reminded me in December of the 700 plus people with disabilities in the European Parliament. I had the honour of leading an 11-strong Irish delegation. One was from Kerry, so that is parish-pump at its best. The Chairman might con- sider inviting some of those people to listen to what they have to say about their experiences. In fairness to Ireland, the European Down’s syndrome delegation was made up entirely of Irish people. There was an Irishwoman on the European Alzheimer’s disease group. There was a fine presentation of people from Ireland. That makes the point that Irish groups, whether disability-related or otherwise, want to participate and have an interest in participating in mat- ters at a European level. The ombudsman mentioned the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Government committed two weeks ago to having it ratified by the end of next month. We have got a lot of slagging internationally for being the last country in Europe to do so but I am convinced that Ireland can come out strongly over the next years and show what it can do. The ombudsman mentioned big, multi-national agencies, including the European Disability Forum, the European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities, and the Social Platform. They do not have three dozen staff between them and are trying to work for people with disabilities and others. There are real issues concerning who has the money to get selective knowledge and insider information. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence and tolerance.

Chairman: We will wrap up. We will allow the ombudsman to leave and go into private session.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.37 p.m. and adjourned at 4.46 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 February 2018.

32