Report of the Committee of the Centre:
European Union Issues

TOP

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

I beg to move

I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List of amendments.

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1 delete "notes" and insert "accepts".

After consideration at its meeting of 20 March 2002, the Committee of the Centre agreed to an amendment to its original motion to ask the Assembly to accept rather than note its report and recommendations. We believe that the change gives more weight to our recommendations and is a truer reflection of the work and commitment shown by members of the Committee over the past six months. I shall speak on the amendment.

I shall start by giving some background on how EU issues impact on Northern Ireland and why the Committee of the Centre and I believe that it is an important area worthy of in-depth consideration. European issues are not devolved matters. The European Union is a union of member states, and a council of the relevant Ministers from the member states - the Council of Ministers - and the European Parliament make decisions.

During the Committee's investigations, it came as a surprise to discover that up to 60% of our legislation comes from Europe, and 80% of the policies in our Programme for Government relate to, or originate from, European Union policies. Although the decisions are taken in Brussels, they are implemented in, and impact on, Northern Ireland. That gives the Northern Ireland Assembly and its Administration a clear role to play in EU affairs. The role is recognised and codified in the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Executive in the Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues.

United Kingdom Ministers and Departments take policy lines on various issues under discussion in Europe. The relevant Minister subsequently takes that policy line to the Council of Ministers in Europe. It is, therefore, vital that Northern Ireland ensures that its voice is heard in London before the UK agrees its policy line. That is especially important when the issue under consideration will have a distinct or unique impact on our region.

Post-devolution, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister created two new structures to reflect Northern Ireland's changed role in EU affairs - the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and the European Policy Co-ordination Unit in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Committee visited the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels in January 2002 and used its premises as its headquarters while it carried out business there. The office has the remit of liaising with European Union institutions on issues that affect Northern Ireland. The occasion of the Committee's visit to Brussels afforded Northern Ireland's MEPs their first opportunity to visit the office.

The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly have similar offices. I wish to make it clear that the Committee welcomes the opening of the Brussels office. It is an essential step if Northern Ireland is to create its own voice in Europe and have a say in the UK policy line to Brussels. The offices are well situated and well appointed, and every consideration has been given to security. Given that the staff work under the umbrella of the UK Permanent Representation to Brussels (UKRep), which gives them diplomatic status and access to confidential papers, security considerations are important. However, the Committee has major concerns about the approach that the office adopts. Those concerns centre on the fact that the office was initially set up only for the Executive. That was done despite the expectation of the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe that it would share office space with the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive.

The Committee questions that narrow approach. It also has concerns that so much office space is lying empty. The Northern Ireland people are paying for the office at a premium, and that space could be used to create a sense of an office for Northern Ireland, not simply an office for the Executive. All the evidence that the Committee received indicates that to succeed in the creation of a distinct voice for a region, it is necessary to involve all individuals and organisations that have an interest in Europe. That includes MEPs, the Assembly, local government and other non-governmental partners. The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly have taken a co-operative networking approach, and the Committee believes that that is the best approach for Northern Ireland.

When the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly opened their offices in Brussels, they made a deliberate decision to work co-operatively with the organisations that were already there. The Scottish Executive moved into the same building as Scotland Europa, and the Welsh Assembly shares office space with the Wales European Centre. Scotland and Wales built on the experience of the organisations that were already there, which allowed them to build on the existing contacts and make use of existing networks.

A platform for all of Scotland and Wales, it also created a sense of a region working together. A complementary system exists between non-Government and Government, which only enhances the profile of the region. As many individuals told us during our visit to Brussels, the European Commission, the European Council of Ministers and the Parliament do not want to hear five or six different voices from one region. Representations are more likely to be effective when all sectors and parties work together.

When the Committee began the inquiry, we were concerned at the lack of such a co-operative partnership-led approach. We welcome indications from the junior Minister and from the First and Deputy First Ministers that that is now being addressed. This change, however welcome, does not address the issue of why the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister did not initially develop a working relationship with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe, which had a base in Brussels. It did, and still does, have a wide range of contacts and access to important and influential networks. It has in-depth knowledge and expertise, which can be used for all of Northern Ireland. The Committee understands that OFMDFM has reopened communication with the Northern Ireland Centre. I could be cynical and say that negotiations are only happening because of the inquiry. However, the Committee is more concerned that it is happening, rather than why it did not happen in the first place.

As I have said, our focus was to ensure that the approach being taken was the best for Northern Ireland, and, to that end, we make several recommendations for the Brussels office that will improve the current approach. We welcome the statement by junior Minister Haughey that communication has been reopened with the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe and recommend that the Committee receive regular briefings on the progress of such communication. We also recommend that the Brussels office take a more co-operative and networking approach, that it looks at the Scottish and Welsh models of building on existing expertise and that it provides office space for non-governmental organisations. We would also like to see a change in its name, to reflect the more co-operative approach promised by the junior Minister in his evidence to the Committee, and by the First and Deputy First Ministers in their speeches at the office's opening.

The other new structure put in place by OFMDFM since devolution is the European Policy and Co-ordination Unit, which sits within the Economic Policy Unit of OFMDFM. Its overall task is to provide a policy and co-ordination role for the Departments in developing their relationship with the European Union. The unit has identified six main areas of work, which are listed on page 253 of the report. The Committee focused on the co-ordination aspect of the unit's work and found it to be disappointing. Of course, some leeway must be allowed, as it is a new unit that is starting from scratch. However, it has been operating for two years, and we expected it to have made more progress than it has done. For example, in the EU strategy, we find that OFMDFM's corporate business plan was to be delivered in July 2001, and we still await it. What we eventually received, at the conclusion of the inquiry, was an intermediate document - the EU draft framework. Junior Minister Haughey indicated in his evidence that he aimed to complete the strategy before the Assembly breaks for the elections in 2003. That is almost two years behind schedule, which is totally unacceptable.

The EU draft framework also makes reference to several other strategies and related documents, such as the strategy for interregional co-operation and a policy on secondments. However, we have no indication of when those documents will be available for our scrutiny. The document is only a framework, but even within a framework we expect to see a certain level of detail on delivery, methodology, resources, expected outcomes, timescales and evaluation. Those are all missing from the document. For example, in the framework paper, aims and objectives, as set out in annex A of the document, objective 1 has four parts to it, but it gives no indication of how those will be achieved, the resources needed, how success or failure will be measured, et cetera. The document, which is contained in a written submission in the report, is called 'A Framework for Developing Northern Ireland's Participation in the European Union', yet, on page 263 of the report, reference is made to a

That is not a strategy for Northern Ireland as the title would suggest. The document is based solely on the needs of the Departments and the Executive.

No recognition is given to the involvement of the Assembly and other key players, and when we passed the framework document to other Assembly Committees, their response showed that they had neither been consulted nor had been able to scrutinise the departmental priorities listed as EU priorities for Northern Ireland. Many of the written submissions received by the Committee noted that they had not even heard of the existence of such a document.

The junior Minister made reference to, and the Committee agrees that there is a need for a regional strategy that takes account of all Northern Ireland's needs and not simply those of Departments. That approach is missing. As with the Brussels office, a narrow approach, based solely on the needs of the Executive, is evident - an approach that the Committee does not believe is best for Northern Ireland.

I mentioned the priorities set out for Northern Ireland in the framework document. They are found in annex B of the framework document and on page 273 of the inquiry report. A list of 100 topics is set out, which, as the framework document says, are

The Brussels office is, apparently, to shadow the 58 high priority areas. The Committee does not see how that will be possible with only four staff in the office and given its other work.

Northern Ireland is a small region in Europe with limited resources. We cannot expect to influence or make a difference in every area of EU policy that affects Northern Ireland. Planning and co-ordination are needed if our resources are to be focused on the areas in which we can be sure of getting some return. The Committee does not feel that trying to cover 100 topics will develop the focus needed to ensure successful returns from our limited resources, so we have made several recommendations that deal with the European Policy Co-ordination Unit and EU strategy. The number of topics should be reduced to achieve a more strategic focus that will reflect the distinctiveness of our situation, and that should be done by timely consultation with Assembly Committees and others, such as Members of the European Parliament.

We also recommend that the EU strategy be completed before the Assembly is dissolved for elections, and the need for greater detail on methodology, et cetera, should be addressed immediately. The strategy should be a regional one, not one narrowly focused on the needs of the Executive and Departments, and it should be developed and informed through wide consultation.

Having dealt with OFMDFM's approach, it may be appropriate to consider whether that approach can be successful in influencing policy and decisions that affect Northern Ireland.

As I mentioned earlier, the UK is the member state that makes the decisions that affect Northern Ireland. If we wish to influence policy, we must first do that by influencing the UK policy line. Generally, the UK takes its policy line to the Council of Ministers' meetings in Europe where the final EU policy decisions are taken, sometimes in conjunction with the European Parliament. UK Ministers are supported by the UK Permanent Representation with its staff of 140. Northern Ireland Departments must, therefore, liaise with their UK counterparts and ensure that our concerns are taken into account when the UK policy line is being determined. That is important when the policy is going to have a specific impact on us. The Committee was concerned to note that many of the Departments do not have the appropriate contacts in place.

The concordats that I mentioned make provision for Northern Ireland Ministers to attend the relevant Council of Ministers' meetings in Brussels, and Ministers from the other devolved regions use that privilege extensively. On occasion, the Scottish Ministers have even led the UK delegation. The Committee was concerned, therefore, to find that the only Northern Ireland Minister to attend a Council of Ministers' meeting has been Brid Rodgers and recommends that every effort be made to ensure the attendance of our Ministers at relevant Council meetings, especially when policy or legislation is being discussed that will affect Northern Ireland.

On the subject of influencing EU policy, the Committee noted the evidence that suggests that there are ways to influence EU policy, other than by the formal London route. Informal networking, especially with other regions or consortia with similar concerns, can prove very effective, if they do not contradict or go against the UK policy line.

There are several points of entry, but such informal networks require long-term commitment, collective effort, co-ordination and a willingness to actively engage with non-Government partners. It would appear from the evidence received by the Committee of the Centre that such informal networks and methods of influencing are being ignored at the expense of the formal, structured Government channels.

The Committee makes several recommendations to deal with the issue of networking. First, it looked at the individuals and organisations with a formal role to play. That includes the MEPs, the Assembly and the Northern Ireland representatives on the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee.

The Committee recommends that formal structures be put in place to ensure regular communication and networking. The MEPs, the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee members all have an important role to play in Europe, detailed knowledge of what is happening and, most importantly, strategically important contacts. For example, our three MEPs can, and have, come together, despite their diverging political backgrounds, to work to achieve the best for Northern Ireland, and they have had considerable success.

The Committee acknowledges that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has made some attempts to bring all the major players together, but those attempts do not appear to have been successful. The Committee would refer OFMDFM to the work of the Scottish Executive in creating the European Elected Members Information Liaison and Exchange (EMILE). That is a structure set up by the Scottish Executive, which regularly brings together all relevant parties and individuals who have a formal role to discuss European issues and share information. It involves the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Parliament, MEPs and Scotland's representatives on the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. The Committee would like a similar group to be established in Northern Ireland.

The Committee would also like structures to be put in place to ensure that networking occurs among informal players such as local government, the social partners and organisations such as the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe. The Committee notes that the Programme for Government 2001-02 made reference to a forum for Europe. That has been omitted from the latest Programme for Government. Although the Committee does not see the need for an elaborate structure, such as that of the Civic Forum, it recommends that some form of improving communication and networking with the informal parties be put in place.

The recommendations that deal with networking are especially important, given that the evidence gathered during the Committee's inquiry showed that many of the non-Government bodies and local government representatives expressed concerns that relations within the European Union were conducted on an unco-ordinated and ad hoc basis, with little or no communication on what was happening.

The Committee considered ways to address what it thought of as the shortcomings of OFMDFM. In summary, the areas that the Committee was most concerned about include: the lack of awareness by non-Government bodies on the approach; the lack of communications and consultation by OFMDFM; the narrow focus of the European Policy and Co-ordination Unit on the needs of the Executive, rather than on the region of Northern Ireland; the need for greater clarity in those important areas; and the delay in developing the EU strategy.

The Committee's report makes several recommendations to deal with shortcomings, which I have mentioned. However, it makes two further recommendations of a structural nature, which it believes will improve the situation.

First, the European Policy and Co-ordination Unit should be a free-standing unit within OFMDFM, not a part of the Economic Policy Unit. European affairs are sufficiently important to justify a free-standing unit. It should also be properly resourced to enable it to carry out its wide-ranging and varied responsibilities. A budget of £163,000 and four staff working under a director who has other responsibilities is insufficient to enable the unit to carry out its duties. The Committee suspects that that under-resourcing leads to missed deadlines, lack of consultation and a focus on the official channels of communication.

The second major change that the Committee recommends on the structure of OFMDFM concerns the remit of the junior Ministers. Several witnesses suggested that Northern Ireland should have a Minister, or junior Minister, for Europe. The Committee considers that there is some merit in that. Although there is nothing in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to prevent the nomination of one of the junior Ministers to take a lead role in one policy area, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have taken the position that the junior Ministers must act jointly. The Committee, however, recommends that one junior Minister should take a lead role for European affairs.

That would be pivotal if the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were to address issues such as the widespread perception of an unco-ordinated and ad hoc approach.

Post-devolution, Northern Ireland has the ability to develop its own strategies and policies, which differs from the pre-devolution period when policy was established in London. The direct engagement of officials with Europe - with the exception of the Department of Finance and Personnel on funding and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development - was limited. The Committee thinks that a more proactive approach should now be taken to build capacity in Departments and in the Assembly in order to become engaged in European issues. When junior Minister Denis Haughey gave evidence to the Committee, he agreed with that point. He said that

The evidence received by the Committee points to secondments as being one of the most effective ways to build capacity. The Committee was, therefore, alarmed at some of the information available on secondment. Despite its importance, very few people are currently on secondment. More importantly, it appears that, on return from secondment, little use is made of newly acquired skills. During its inquiry, the Committee examined the secondment policies of the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly. The Scottish Executive have put aside a substantial budget in order to allow up to 12 secondments each year. The Welsh Assembly has gone a step further by ensuring that secondments can be made from the non-Government sector. That is another example of partnership and a co-operative approach that seems to be missing from the Northern Ireland approach.

However, the Committee notes that a secondment policy is being developed, and it looks forward to receiving it. The Committee expects that the recommendations on secondments in its report will be taken on board. The recommendations include: long-term secondments of two to three years, and short-term secondments; full use being made of the experience and skills gained on return; enhanced promotional opportunities for long-term secondees in order to attract high-quality candidates, and to provide a reward for the disruption to the secondee and to his or her family; central funding to be put in place to cover departmental costs, because Departments must pick up the secondment costs at present, which is not encouraging and is often seen as a disincentive to allowing staff to go on EU secondments; and funding for non-Government secondments.

Northern Ireland has several outstanding EU Directives that have not been transposed, and we could soon face fines for non-compliance. Recently, Italy had fines of up to £50,000 each day for non-compliance. Any such fines will be taken out of the Northern Ireland Budget. The Committee for the Environment specifically highlighted that issue. Northern Ireland seems to experience most problems with environmental EU Directives. However, Mr Haughey indicated to the Committee that many problems had arisen during direct rule.

The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has a core responsibility to ensure that Departments implement EU Directives, and it has created a database in order to keep track of that implementation. The Committee recommends that the database be brought up to date and be shared with the Assembly and the relevant Committees. The Committee welcomes a recent meeting between the Committee for the Environment and the Minister of the Environment, which brought that Committee up to speed on the current status of EU Directives. Furthermore, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should be working upstream and should be aware of EU Directives as they are being developed. It should be able to provide the Assembly with a 12-to-18-month forward programme of any EU legislation that it is expected to implement. Each Department should brief its Committee fully on current and future EU Directives, develop an implementation timetable and provide information on any likely infraction procedures.

The Committee considered its own role, as well as asking for the opinions of the Statutory Committees. The main issue that was highlighted by Committees was lack of information and communication from the relevant Departments on EU issues, particularly on Directives. It is important to provide high-quality, relevant and timely information. When making decisions on EU issues or attempting to influence a particular point, it is essential that the correct information be available. Given that matters are moving so fast in Europe, it is important to ensure that information is up to date.

Despite matters moving so fast in Europe, it can take two to three years for a policy or law to move from the discussion stage in the European Commission to a decision that either the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament, or both, are ready to endorse and agree. Therefore, it is important to work upstream and to be prepared for new issues that may not come into effect for another two or three years.

Despite having a co-ordination role in a cross-departmental area, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister has made it clear that it is not its role to ensure that Departments provide timely, clear and accurate information to Committees. Although it is not the role of the Committee of the Centre to say how other Departments should operate, the Committee nevertheless urges those Departments to put in place structures to ensure that Committees are kept informed both on current developments and on issues that may be two to three years upstream. The Committee also urges Statutory Committees to ensure that such structures are put in place.

The Committee recommends that, in its co-ordinating role, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister establishes a central resource that brings together all relevant information on EU issues and explains their context and implications. Indeed, many of the non-governmental organisations also asked for such a resource to be made available to them. As the Federation of Small Businesses said:

The Committee also recommends that the Assembly take a more proactive role and that the Assembly Commission consider the costs and the benefits of staffing an Assembly information desk in Brussels, which several Statutory Committees suggested. There may be merit in exploring whether a joint office could be set up with Scotland, which is also considering a similar project.

Alternatively, such an office could be based in the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. It is unlikely that the Brussels office could provide the necessary level of service to the Assembly and its Committees. By that I mean information to aid them in the scrutiny of the work of the Executive and Departments in European affairs. It is, after all, an office for the Executive, not the Assembly.

The Committee also recommends that the Assembly's research and library service develops its specialist service to assist the Committees in taking a more proactive role in dealing with EU legislation and policy. Another proactive measure, again suggested by the Statutory Committees, is that Members should receive EU familiarisation training specifically based around their Statutory Committee responsibilities.

The final recommendation dealing with the Assembly concerns the role of the Committee of the Centre. The Committee considered in detail and spent considerable time debating its own structures and role. The Committee has a wide remit, and the area of EU affairs is only one item within that. The Committee has found it impossible to devote sufficient time to EU affairs.

In addition, the evidence from many diverse organisations, ranging from the academic sector to the business sector, suggests that the lack of a dedicated European affairs committee within the Assembly is seen as a weakness in allowing full scrutiny of cross-cutting EU policies and legislation. For example, the Committee has not had time to devote to the ongoing Future of Europe debate - a debate that may change the role of regional authorities in Europe. Furthermore, much of the evidence suggests that an EU affairs committee could provide the focal point for the concerns of local groups and organisations involved in Europe. It could provide an important two-way link between the MEPs, as representatives of the European Parliament, and Members of the Assembly.

After much consideration and some frank discussions, the Committee agreed that there should be a dedicated Standing Committee on EU affairs. However, the Committee recognises that the practicalities of establishing such a committee means that it is unlikely to occur within the lifetime of this Assembly. In the interim, the Committee will establish a subcommittee to consider in detail the remit, workload and membership of such a Committee.

I conclude - Members will be glad to hear - by making a final reference to what the Committee hopes will be achieved if the recommendations in this report are implemented by all concerned, and not only by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Throughout the inquiry, the Committee focused on the approach being taken and debated whether that approach was the best for Northern Ireland. As I have already made clear, the Committee is not convinced that it is. At present, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister's approach is narrow. It deals with the needs of the Executive and the Departments and is centred on using formal channels at the expense of informal networks.

The Committee believes that its recommendations, if implemented, will result in a professional, effective and co-operative approach to Europe. Such an approach will involve not only the formal players - the Executive, the Assembly and the MEPs - but also local government and non-governmental bodies.

It will make use of the vast experience of Europe that exists outside Government. It will build institutional capacity and will focus on gaining maximum returns for what is essentially - in an EU context - a small region with limited resources. I therefore recommend the report to the Assembly.

I do not intend to introduce a time limit at this stage, but I would be grateful if Members would limit their speeches to 10 minutes.

I support the report and commend it to the Assembly. Its 43 recommendations and over 300 pages reflect our enthusiasm for the task. I hope that it also reflects the detail of our investigation.

I congratulate the Chairperson on the businesslike manner in which he chaired the meetings, irrespective of which city we found ourselves in. I also express my appreciation to the Principal Clerk, the Committee Clerks and their colleagues for the professional and patient manner in which they approached the task; not forgetting the invaluable advice given by our researcher and our adviser.

This report, if endorsed by the Assembly, will represent a significant step forward by Northern Ireland plc in its relationship with the EU and its institutions. Sometimes, when dealing with Europe, it is possible to feel like the English tourist who arrived in Ballymena, asked the way to Antrim, and was told "If I were you I would not start from here". There may be other reasons for not wanting to go to Antrim, but we will not go into those. I am sure that Antrim is a delightful place, and I am sure that you will speak up for it, Mr Deputy Speaker.

To date, as highlighted in the document, most contacts have centred on the financial largesse of the EU in its funding of agricultural, structural or peace and reconciliation schemes. Until now, Northern Ireland has been a beneficiary of funding that has been, in general, designed to overcome our distinctive, historical and economic problems. Those days will cease in 2006, which will coincide with the enlargement of the community. Those two events should encourage the Assembly and this region to plan ahead in an inclusive and coherent manner. We must learn to become selective if we are to become effective.

The recommendations in the report are a signpost, which, if followed, will enable the whole community to benefit from the opportunities that an enlarged Europe will bring. They will also allow us to deal more effectively with the threats that such a change could bring.

In our approach to this investigation we chose to map out how EU policy might be influenced. To help us to put this vital aspect of the report into context, we visited our sister institutions, which had already evolved their own distinctive approach mechanisms to the EU.

The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, the House of Lords European Scrutiny Committee and the Scottish Parliament identified key points and critical stages at which EU policy might be positively influenced. The common factor indicated by all was the primacy of the member state. Therefore, it is vital that, as highlighted in Recommendation 2, linkages between the Whitehall Departments, Northern Ireland Departments and the corresponding Assembly Committees be in place. Dare I suggest that they be in place by September 2002?

Equally important is recommendation 8, which states that

The Chairperson drew attention to that vital and fundamental point.

The need is reinforced by recommendation 12, which states that advice and guidance could be provided via a contact point in each Department to its corresponding Assembly Committee and other interested parties.

Recommendation 14 builds upon that more productive approach and suggests that an Assembly information desk be set up in Brussels. Many who submitted evidence favoured the idea, including those from three Committees of the Assembly.

The advent of the devolved institution has presented us with an opportunity - after 30 years of relative inertia - to influence EU policy. Given that 80% of the Programme for Government is affected by EU policy and 60% of Northern Ireland legislation emanates from Brussels, that is vital.

The experiences of the Scottish, Catalonian and Flemish regional representatives point firmly to the necessity of using formal and informal networks in a planned and coherent manner. They also highlighted the need to focus selectively on areas in which results can be obtained - an approach that I have characterised as being "selective to be effective", which encapsulates the essence of what must be done.

That approach relies on the willingness of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and all other Departments to accept the principle of inclusiveness by incorporating the existing skills and knowledge that non-governmental organisations have developed in European matters. That wealth of experience and reservoir of information must be tapped into. That approach found widespread support from consultees, which the Committee highlights in recommendations 7, 9, 11, 23 and 24.

Recommendation 29 refers to co-ordinated networking and access to the Brussels office by organisations such as the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe (NICE), local government and non-governmental organisations. All our contacts, whether regional observers or not, pointed to the need to involve a range of key players in the task of influencing the EU policy makers as far upstream as possible. Mr Nicholson, in his discussions with the Committee, also pointed out the need to monitor the progress of the policies as they come downstream, as they constantly change due to pressure from other interest groups and lobbyists before emerging as fully-fledged Directives.

The Committee also favoured the involvement of Assembly Members and civil servants in a programme to raise awareness of EU matters. It was encouraged to develop strong policies to organise secondments by those to whom it spoke in Brussels and Edinburgh. Given the backlog that Northern Ireland has inherited, the Committee felt that the fast-tracking of staff for short-term secondments and careful placement to maximise, on their return to Northern Ireland, the benefits of their experience should be investigated thoroughly in order to make the process as worthwhile as possible, both to the participants and the Administration. Those thoughts are contained in recommendations 37, 38 and 39.

During the Committee's consultations, concern was expressed that the situation was one of reactive drift, in which responses were tempered to head off infraction proceedings, to dispense EU funding and to introduce the necessary legislation to comply with EU Directives. The Committee is convinced that a proactive framework must be established at all levels. It is no longer a "can do" situation; it is a "must do" scenario in which direction must be given. The Committee's conclusion, which is shared by many contributors, is that a junior Minister must be given responsibility for EU matters. That vital step must be implemented sooner rather than later. It may be reinforced in the interim by the formation of a subcommittee of the Committee of the Centre to focus on EU issues. My preference is that the opportunity to form a European affairs committee should be a central consideration of any review of current practice in the Administration, and that is envisaged in recommendations 10 and 26.

I welcome the establishment of the European Policy Co-Ordination Unit but agree with recommendation 24 that it must be properly resourced if it is to become effective.

During the Committee's consultation with other regional representatives, it was apparent that they all compile formal and informal lists of contacts that may be useful to them for selective and continuous lobbying. It is vital that Northern Ireland develop such a comprehensive list of sympathetic and influential movers and shakers. A co-operative and proactive approach, inclusive of governmental contacts, is suggested in recommendations 29 and 31.

The role, influence and expertise of MEPs must also be connected to everything that I have said. I was not convinced that any or all of them were being actively sought out regularly. The impression that I was given was that, in a crisis, MEPs become central figures, but that once the crisis is over they become marginalized and bureaucracy takes over once more. Recommendations 17, 23 and 34 draw attention to that important point. With the enlargement of the EU, this will become a critical consideration. A community of such a size requires less bureaucracy and more democracy if the machine is not to grind to a halt.

The flow of vital information, both upwards and downwards in the system, is crucial to influencing issues at an early stage. Recommendations 41 and 42 refer to explanatory memoranda from the Cabinet Office being shared with the Assembly, its relevant Committees and, in part, with other non-Government interests. Those memoranda are worthy of scrutiny.

The centralisation of resource capabilities referred to in recommendations 4, 5 and 13 is a useful method of ensuring that existing and expected information and impacts are set in a meaningful context. That will better inform people about the implications, whether they be opportunities or threats.

Throughout the deliberations of the Committee, there was a great deal of cross-party agreement and co-operation. We can all see how fundamental and central this aspect of the life of the Assembly is in dealing with European matters. We cannot afford not to implement the key recommendations in the report, and I appeal to Members to proactively support the drive that the Committee has set before the House - [Interruption] - in its report.

I apologise sincerely for that interruption. It was a wake-up call, and I got more than I bargained for.

I support the report and its recommendations. I will start where my Colleague Ken Robinson left off, by reusing the words "fundamental" and "central". We have all accepted that Europe has had a massive influence on our lives, and everyone would agree that that influence has mostly been for the better. Many people in our community are very grateful to Europe for the support of the peace and reconciliation fund. That is only one example.

At the core of the report - and this is an issue for the Assembly today, tomorrow, next week and next year - is the seriousness with which we want to approach the European Union and with which we want it to take us. How seriously do we want to regard the major influence on our lives that the European Union has become?

Until now, Europe has been seen as a honeypot; a place where funding - sometimes soft funding - could be found. Europe has been a source of cash and, unfortunately, it has been viewed as a bit like Santa Claus at Christmas. Our participation was passive and receptive in many ways as we held out the bowl for the funds, whether regional funding, social development funding or other types. We were very receptive to that bounty. However, that was a short-term approach. It enabled us to get back on our feet after some very difficult years, but we must now move on and develop a more mature relationship with Europe. We must be able to influence the evolution of European Union policies and strategies at a much earlier stage. As some of my Colleagues suggested earlier, we should be influencing policies not only at the early stages, but throughout their evolution and implementation. We must do that in a proactive way, compared to our previous passive approach.

In the European context, some of us have been taught a salutary lesson in how the drift and estrangement of the population in Southern Ireland created circumstances in which the public felt uninvolved - to the point that they voted against the Nice Treaty, which was unfortunate. We do not want to get to that stage, and I do not think that we will if we take this report, and some of the recommendations emerging from it, with the seriousness that it merits.

When we discuss Europe, parties could disagree on many points - Ken Robinson touched wisely and informatively on that matter. As the report was evolving, there was broad consensus, and the Committee sought, for the large part, a common ground. Despite Northern Ireland's limited population of 1·6 million or 1·7 million, there was a realisation that the Assembly could influence Europe and have access to the key players there. That was brought home to the Committee during its visit to Brussels. We realised that we could copy some of the best practice that we saw, and in that context I was particularly impressed with the Scottish system's organisation and experience. I have no doubt that the Scottish representation dressed up their experiences and did not tell us about all their difficulties, but they produced a positive and efficient image. We will need to influence Europe as enlargement unfolds - if we do not, enlargement will swallow us up. It is one thing to be a region with a population of 1·6 million or 1·7 million in a community of approximately 300 million, but if the community's population almost doubles, to over 500 million, Northern Ireland will be a very small fish indeed.

The big issue is the need for greater contact with, and engagement in, Europe. We need to get Northern Ireland Ministers to Europe, attending meetings where possible. In that context, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development had useful contact with Europe during the recent agriculture crises. During the inquiry, the Committee felt that all our Ministers should find ways to attend European Council meetings. We saw the need to connect the Assembly with Europe. We do not wish the report to be the beginning and end of that - we want a regular drip feed to the Assembly from Europe, and from the Assembly, so that it can influence Europe.

Colleagues mentioned the need for a European affairs committee. Although the Committee is aware of some of the difficulties that may be created, and the fact that Members are already stretched in their attempts to cover all the current Committees, members agreed that the vacuum must be filled. We need to take Europe seriously. I will not dwell on that at length, but I have already mentioned the possible designation of a Minister or junior Minister with a European affairs brief. Local government organisations, industry and business must be better connected. Overall, we need to establish a multi-level, multifaceted approach to Europe. Although the Committee welcomed the opening of an office in Brussels, it saw it as much too narrow, and more bureaucratic than political. We need a wider approach, which is well co-ordinated and involves all our players. The Committee accepts readily that the Executive are the big player and that individual Ministers and Departments follow very closely.

However, we emphasise - and I am perhaps repeating what has been mentioned already - that the Assembly does have a role to play in European affairs and should be involved in the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. We realise that Members of the European Parliament have considerable influence and that there should be some method to facilitate regular contact with them. Members of the Committee of the Regions should be linked into some type of formal or informal network. In addition, we could make contact with the European Economic and Social Committee. There is also, of course, the wider community.

As the Committee carried out its inquiry, it discovered an obvious need to get out of the silos - I am thinking especially about the various Government Departments - and make partnership and co-operation work on European issues, in the interest of our whole community. A comprehensive approach would ensure that we achieve the maximum influence in Europe and receive the maximum benefits from it.

There appeared to be a laissez-faire attitude in many Departments and sections of Government. Often, matters were allowed to drift, and because European issues sometimes had to be dealt with by several Departments, the process was like musical chairs - everyone deferred to someone else.

We must move from that passive attitude into a proactive, dare I say, aggressive approach to Europe. We have seen what other nations have done - and we only have to look South of the border to see what the Irish Republic has done as regards its influence in Europe. Equally, the inquiry noticed that some regions had dramatically influenced Europe and had served their own interests extremely well.

As I mentioned earlier, we need a network to gather information that goes beyond the formal arrangements. I was particularly impressed that, even though there are few secondments from Northern Ireland to Europe, several natives who have been placed in Brussels, or who have worked there, have a considerable resource of information and influence. Therefore they must be included in any informal network that we create.

If I could dwell for a moment on the secondment of staff - [Interruption].

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>