Managing Europe From Home: The Europeanisation of the Irish ...
Managing Europe From Home: The Europeanisation of the Irish ...
Managing Europe From Home: The Europeanisation of the Irish ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Managing</strong> <strong>Europe</strong> <strong>From</strong> <strong>Home</strong>:<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Core Executive<br />
Report on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Case Study<br />
January 2003<br />
Brigid Laffan<br />
Jane O’Mahony<br />
Dublin <strong>Europe</strong>an Institute<br />
National University <strong>of</strong> Ireland
INTRODUCTION<br />
In this part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research programme ‘Organising for EU Enlargement’, we focus on<br />
one dimension <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation, namely an examination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Union (EU) 1 membership on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> central governmental and administrative<br />
system – <strong>the</strong> core executive. This study begins from <strong>the</strong> premise that <strong>the</strong> dynamic<br />
<strong>of</strong> involvement in and with <strong>the</strong> EU creates a challenge to national, political and<br />
administrative systems. Domestic public policy making is no longer confined within<br />
<strong>the</strong> structures and processes <strong>of</strong> national government given <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
additional arena created by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union. <strong>The</strong> EU gives rise to interdependent<br />
policy processes across levels <strong>of</strong> government. This study seeks to map and analyse<br />
<strong>the</strong> adaptation and change <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive to <strong>Europe</strong>an Union<br />
membership.<br />
This research forms part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> burgeoning interest in what is called <strong>Europe</strong>anisation,<br />
a notion that began to gain considerable currency in <strong>the</strong> 1990s. <strong>The</strong> literature on<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>anisation grapples with <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU on <strong>the</strong> national and <strong>the</strong> national<br />
on <strong>the</strong> EU. It is a complex and multidimensional process resulting from membership<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union or from close co-operation with <strong>the</strong> Union that touches on <strong>the</strong><br />
policy, politics and polities <strong>of</strong> every member and candidate state (Ladrech 1994;<br />
Goetz 2001; Radelli 2000). <strong>The</strong> focus <strong>of</strong> study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union has shifted<br />
from examining how decisions are made at <strong>the</strong> EU level to how <strong>the</strong>se EU decisions<br />
impact on <strong>the</strong> national, sub-national and local arenas. <strong>Europe</strong>anisation can be<br />
defined as ‘<strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> influence deriving from <strong>Europe</strong>an Union decisions and<br />
impacting member states’ policies and political and administrative structures’<br />
(Héritier 2001: 3). <strong>Europe</strong>anisation embraces a number <strong>of</strong> different elements: <strong>the</strong><br />
decisions made at <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union level, <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se decisions for<br />
national and subnational policies <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> member states in <strong>the</strong> relevant policy<br />
areas, <strong>the</strong> effect on national, regional and local systems <strong>of</strong> administration and<br />
governance in coping with <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU interface, as well as <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>anisation <strong>of</strong> electoral politics through <strong>Europe</strong>an parliament, national elections<br />
and referendums.<br />
1 In 1987, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Economic Community (EEC) became known as <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Community (EC). Following <strong>the</strong> ratification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Treaty on <strong>Europe</strong>an Union, <strong>the</strong> EC<br />
was renamed <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union (EU). For <strong>the</strong> sake <strong>of</strong> consistency, <strong>the</strong> term EU<br />
will be used throughout this study to refer to <strong>the</strong> EEC, EC and EU.
Among practitioners and academics, <strong>the</strong>re are differing expectations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> likely<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU on national government and administration (Schout 1999). Some<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous studies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> EU membership on core executives based<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir analyses on one key premise, namely that similar external pressures in <strong>the</strong><br />
form <strong>of</strong> EU membership will lead to similar institutional responses within each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
member states (See Harmsen 1999 for discussion <strong>of</strong> this; Genschel 2000).<br />
However, subsequent empirical work has shown this premise to be erroneous.<br />
Indeed, this report forms one <strong>of</strong> a growing number <strong>of</strong> studies to dispute this view<br />
(Page and Wouters 1995: 203; Harmsen 1999; Goetz and Hix 2001). <strong>The</strong> central<br />
argument <strong>of</strong> this report is that national core executive adaptation to <strong>Europe</strong>anisation<br />
is varying and differentiated instead <strong>of</strong> uniform. <strong>The</strong> national meets <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an in<br />
a complex ecology <strong>of</strong> processes that differ across time and policy area. <strong>The</strong> extent <strong>of</strong><br />
adjustment to <strong>Europe</strong>anisation by national core executives is contingent upon <strong>the</strong><br />
existing government and administrative institutions in place, <strong>the</strong>ir effectiveness in<br />
managing EU business, <strong>the</strong>ir resistance and/or acquiescence to adaptation and<br />
reform and national political and administrative cultures. Member state<br />
administrative structures, modes <strong>of</strong> procedure and agent responses to involvement<br />
in EU policy-making will <strong>of</strong> necessity be different because no one member state has<br />
exactly <strong>the</strong> same core executive system. <strong>The</strong>refore, important questions to answer<br />
when looking at how a member states manages <strong>the</strong> EU interface include: how have<br />
core executives adapted to deal with <strong>the</strong> consequences <strong>of</strong> EU membership and do<br />
<strong>the</strong>se changes to governmental and administrative institutions represent more<br />
incremental and piecemeal reform or radical and transformative change<br />
This report puts forward <strong>the</strong> case that <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU by national core<br />
executives can be represented in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a reflexive, interactive relationship.<br />
Core<br />
Executive<br />
Reflexive Interaction<br />
Projection<br />
Reception<br />
EU<br />
policy<br />
making
<strong>The</strong> core executive is at one and <strong>the</strong> same time a receptor <strong>of</strong> EU policy preferences<br />
and processes, and a projector <strong>of</strong> policy preferences and processes onto <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
system (see also Bulmer and Burch, 2000). Reception can be both active and<br />
passive, that is to say member states can or may need to passively adapt to <strong>the</strong><br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> EU policy-making, i.e. undertake to manage <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> policy and<br />
procedure from Brussels in an incremental and less structured manner (passive) or<br />
can actively adjust central governance and administrative structures to cope with EU<br />
business in a transformative and innovative fashion (active). <strong>The</strong> type <strong>of</strong> reception<br />
experienced depends primarily on <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national core executive, its<br />
ability to respond to change (also referred to as institutional stickiness) and <strong>the</strong><br />
desire <strong>of</strong> its principals to instigate change in response to perceived need. <strong>The</strong><br />
relationship between <strong>the</strong> national and <strong>the</strong> EU is reflexive. National core executives<br />
are not merely translator devices, <strong>the</strong>y can also project <strong>the</strong>ir own policy preferences<br />
and policy models onto <strong>the</strong> EU (Genschel 2000: 98). That is to say, not only do<br />
government institutions handling <strong>Europe</strong>an policy translate EU requirements into<br />
domestic laws and regulations in order to make domestic policy compatible with EU<br />
policy, <strong>the</strong>y can also translate domestic policy models into proposals for EU action in<br />
order to keep <strong>the</strong> costs <strong>of</strong> domestic adjustment low. As with reception, projection<br />
can also be active or passive, in o<strong>the</strong>r words active projection can consist <strong>of</strong><br />
concerted and proactive efforts by <strong>the</strong> national governmental and administrative<br />
system to influence <strong>the</strong> EU policy process, i.e. policy formulation, negotiation and<br />
implementation at <strong>the</strong> EU level. Passive projection, as a consequence, represents a<br />
more reactive approach by national core executive systems towards involvement<br />
within <strong>the</strong> EU policy making process and is evident when little effort is made to<br />
actively influence policy-making at <strong>the</strong> EU level.<br />
Conceptual Framework<br />
This report examines <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> national core executive. <strong>The</strong><br />
notion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> core executive was developed in research on central government in <strong>the</strong><br />
UK (Rhodes 2000, vols. 1 and 2). It was designed to capture not just <strong>the</strong> formal<br />
structures —cabinet and ministries— but <strong>the</strong> roles, networks and informal processes<br />
that form <strong>the</strong> heart <strong>of</strong> government. According to Dunleavy and Rhodes, <strong>the</strong> core<br />
executive ‘includes all those organizations and structures which primarily serve to<br />
pull toge<strong>the</strong>r and integrate central government policies, or act as final arbiters within
<strong>the</strong> executive <strong>of</strong> conflicts between different elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government machine’<br />
(Dunleavy and Rhodes 1990). In research on <strong>the</strong> core executive, <strong>the</strong> EU emerged as<br />
a major factor in changing <strong>the</strong> environment within which <strong>the</strong> centre governs (Wright<br />
and Hayward 2000: 32). <strong>The</strong> latter draw attention to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation <strong>of</strong> actors,<br />
structures, arenas and processes <strong>of</strong> public policy making in <strong>Europe</strong>. For <strong>the</strong><br />
purposes <strong>of</strong> this study, <strong>the</strong> key relationships examined with regard to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core<br />
executive include those between <strong>the</strong> political and administrative levels, that is <strong>the</strong><br />
Prime Minister (Taoiseach), ministers and <strong>the</strong> Cabinet, senior civil servants and <strong>the</strong><br />
operational administration, and <strong>the</strong> core executive and <strong>the</strong> wider political system,<br />
most notably relations with parliament (through parliamentary committees).<br />
<strong>The</strong> framework that guides this mapping <strong>of</strong> EU management by <strong>the</strong> core executive is<br />
based on an institutionalist perspective, particularly historical institutionalism. An<br />
institutionalist approach enables us to map <strong>the</strong> institutional framework within which<br />
<strong>Irish</strong> actors interact with <strong>the</strong> EU and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r member states on <strong>the</strong> one hand, and<br />
to highlight processes <strong>of</strong> change, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. Institutionalists pay particular<br />
attention to <strong>the</strong> configuration <strong>of</strong> political order around formal institutions,<br />
organisations, norms, rules and practices. Historical institutionalists define<br />
institutions as <strong>the</strong> ‘formal or informal procedures, routines, norms and conventions<br />
embedded in <strong>the</strong> organizational structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> polity or political economy’ (Hall and<br />
Taylor 1996: 938). Formal structures, formal and informal rules and procedures<br />
frame <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> actors (<strong>The</strong>len and Steinmo 1992: 2). In this perspective<br />
institutions are constitutive <strong>of</strong> actors shaping <strong>the</strong>ir strategies, goals and even <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
identities. March and Olsen in particular draw attention to <strong>the</strong> ‘logic <strong>of</strong><br />
appropriateness’ governing action when <strong>the</strong>y argue that ‘action is <strong>of</strong>ten based more<br />
on discovering <strong>the</strong> normatively appropriate behaviour than on calculating <strong>the</strong> return<br />
expected from alternative choices. As a result, political behaviour, like o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
behaviour, can be described in terms <strong>of</strong> ‘duties, obligations, roles and rules’ (March<br />
and Olsen 1984: 744) <strong>The</strong> emphasis on roles is particularly important when<br />
analysing <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> individual <strong>of</strong>fice holders and civil servants - <strong>the</strong> agents - in<br />
managing EU business.<br />
<strong>The</strong> level <strong>of</strong> analysis in this study is based on <strong>the</strong> organisational field that constitutes<br />
<strong>the</strong> core executive in Ireland (Scott 2001: 84). <strong>The</strong>re are many ways <strong>of</strong><br />
disaggregating an organisational field. Bulmer and Burch began <strong>the</strong>ir work on <strong>the</strong>
British core executive by distinguishing between four institutional gradations—formal<br />
institutional structure, processes and procedures, codes and guidelines, and <strong>the</strong><br />
cultural dimension (Bulmer and Burch 1998). This was later adapted to focus on four<br />
institutional dimensions, notably, <strong>the</strong> systematic, organisational, procedural and<br />
regulative (Bulmer and Burch 2000: 50). <strong>The</strong> analytical focus in this study is on <strong>the</strong><br />
structures, processes and agents who manage <strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
core executive and Brussels. <strong>The</strong> structural component maps <strong>the</strong> organizations and<br />
structures that form <strong>the</strong> core executive in Ireland and <strong>the</strong> key relationships in <strong>the</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> EU affairs over time. <strong>The</strong> process component examines pathways<br />
for EU related information through <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> domestic system and <strong>the</strong> codes, rules,<br />
guidelines that govern <strong>the</strong> handling <strong>of</strong> EU business over time. <strong>The</strong> agent component<br />
tracks <strong>the</strong> cadre <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials who are primarily responsible for mediating between <strong>the</strong><br />
EU and <strong>the</strong> national levels.<br />
A central concern <strong>of</strong> historical institutionalism and <strong>of</strong> this research is <strong>the</strong> dynamic <strong>of</strong><br />
change to <strong>the</strong> structures and processes that govern management <strong>of</strong> EU matters in<br />
Ireland. Historical institutionalism is based on <strong>the</strong> premise that institutions are<br />
‘sticky’ and that once created may prove difficult and costly to change. Linked to this<br />
is <strong>the</strong> notion that institutions may be locked into a particular path <strong>of</strong> development.<br />
<strong>The</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> path dependency is central to historical institutionalism whereby<br />
institutions are shaped by ‘critical junctures and developmental pathways’ (Ikenberry<br />
1988: 16). A critical juncture is defined by Collier and Collier as a ‘period <strong>of</strong><br />
significant change … which is hypo<strong>the</strong>sised to produce distinct legacies’ (Collier and<br />
Collier 1991: 29). Change may result from factors or processes exogenous to <strong>the</strong><br />
institutional system such as an external crisis or may be more incremental as a<br />
result <strong>of</strong> forces internal to <strong>the</strong> system (Pierson 2000a, 2000b; Scott 2001).<br />
According to <strong>the</strong> propositions <strong>of</strong> historical institutionalism, institutional change in <strong>the</strong><br />
national core executive can occur in response to a critical juncture, in o<strong>the</strong>r words<br />
critical junctures will prompt institutional responses. A critical juncture will lead to<br />
disequilibrium in <strong>the</strong> institutional management <strong>of</strong> EU business, which will prompt <strong>the</strong><br />
need for institutional change. This change will in turn be influenced by <strong>the</strong><br />
embedded nature <strong>of</strong> existing institutional structures (path dependence).<br />
<strong>The</strong> report proceeds as follows. Section I maps <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core<br />
executive as a whole and assesses its responsiveness to reform and change. It also
analyses <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive’s institutional adaptation to managing EC/EU<br />
business in a preliminary manner with <strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> critical junctures in<br />
Ireland’s relationship with <strong>the</strong> EU, including key structural and procedural changes.<br />
Section II analyses in more detail <strong>the</strong> main structures in place within <strong>the</strong> core<br />
executive and how <strong>the</strong>y are organised to handle EU business, i.e. to receive and<br />
project. Section III examines <strong>the</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> processes and procedures, i.e. how<br />
<strong>the</strong> structures have worked in practice. Section IV looks at <strong>the</strong> composition and<br />
role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cadre or agents in <strong>the</strong> core executive who handle EU business, for<br />
example, has this reservoir <strong>of</strong> expertise been cultivated in any explicit way Section<br />
V and <strong>the</strong> concluding section return to <strong>the</strong> main questions asked in this report,<br />
namely, when and how has <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive adapted to deal with <strong>the</strong><br />
consequences <strong>of</strong> EU membership and do <strong>the</strong> changes to <strong>Irish</strong> governmental and<br />
administrative institutions represent more incremental and piecemeal reform or<br />
radical and transformative change<br />
SECTION I<br />
<strong>The</strong> Core Executive in Ireland<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive and system <strong>of</strong> government has been categorised as a<br />
variant <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Westminster model (See Gallagher, Laver, Mair 2001). One important<br />
difference is <strong>the</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> a written constitution on <strong>Irish</strong> politics and<br />
government. <strong>The</strong> 1937 <strong>Irish</strong> Constitution (Article 28.2) stipulates that <strong>the</strong> executive<br />
power <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> State shall be exercised by or on <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Government.<br />
Article 28.4.2 provides that:<br />
<strong>the</strong> Government shall meet and act as a collective authority, and shall be<br />
collectively responsible for <strong>the</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong> State administered by <strong>the</strong><br />
members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Government.<br />
<strong>The</strong> key convention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Westminster model - collective responsibility - lies at <strong>the</strong><br />
heart <strong>of</strong> Article 28.4.2 with its reference to ‘collective authority’ and <strong>the</strong> stipulation<br />
that <strong>the</strong> Government shall be ‘collectively responsible’ for <strong>the</strong> departments <strong>of</strong> state.<br />
While <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> and British systems have diverged somewhat since <strong>the</strong> foundation <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> state, this core constitutional convention remains unaltered. <strong>The</strong> constitution<br />
vests political authority in <strong>the</strong> Government, which meets in Cabinet.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive consists <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister, <strong>the</strong> Government, ministries<br />
known as departments (corresponding to all main areas <strong>of</strong> policy), and <strong>the</strong> civil or<br />
administrative service. In accordance with <strong>the</strong> 1937 Constitution, <strong>the</strong> Government is<br />
chosen by <strong>the</strong> lower house <strong>of</strong> Parliament, <strong>the</strong> Dáil 2 , through <strong>the</strong> election <strong>of</strong> a Prime<br />
Minister (Taoiseach) and <strong>the</strong> approval <strong>of</strong> his/her choice <strong>of</strong> ministers who are<br />
collectively responsible to <strong>the</strong> Dáil for every aspect <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> administration’s activities.<br />
<strong>The</strong> 1937 Constitution places <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach in a powerful position as <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
government. <strong>The</strong> Taoiseach nominates ministers, decides on <strong>the</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
responsibilities among ministers and can sack <strong>the</strong>m. If <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach resigns, <strong>the</strong><br />
government falls. In addition to <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s structural position in <strong>the</strong><br />
constitution, <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach controls <strong>the</strong> Cabinet agenda, is <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> a political<br />
party and has won an electoral mandate to hold <strong>of</strong>fice. Traditionally <strong>the</strong> debate on<br />
<strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> prime minister has evolved around <strong>the</strong> notions <strong>of</strong> chairman or<br />
chief, which can be translated into <strong>the</strong> contemporary debate on cabinet or prime<br />
ministerial government (Farrell 1971; Smith 2000: 33). Given <strong>the</strong> convention <strong>of</strong><br />
collective responsibility, which is deeply ingrained in <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory and practice <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
government, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> Taoiseach is more than that <strong>of</strong> chairman but is not so<br />
dominant as to warrant <strong>the</strong> title <strong>of</strong> prime ministerial government.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Constitution stipulates that <strong>the</strong> government shall consist <strong>of</strong> no less than 7 and<br />
no more than 15 ministers. <strong>The</strong> current government (June 2002 onwards) has 14<br />
ministers. 3 Up to seventeen Ministers <strong>of</strong> State (junior ministers) can also be<br />
appointed, and at certain times (in particular in <strong>the</strong> run up to an EU Presidency) a<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs can be appointed. <strong>The</strong> new Government <strong>of</strong><br />
2 <strong>The</strong> Seanad (Senate) is <strong>the</strong> Upper House <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legislature (Oireachtas).<br />
3 <strong>The</strong> Fianna Fail (FF) – Progressive Democrat Government formed in June 2002 -<br />
Taoiseach: Mr Bertie Ahern;Tánaiste and Enterprise,Trade & Employment: Ms<br />
Mary Harney (Progressive Democrat); Finance: Mr Charlie McCreevy (FF); Foreign<br />
Affairs: Mr Brian Cowen (FF); Justice, Equality and Law Reform: Mr Michael<br />
McDowell (Progressive Democrat); Agriculture & Food: Mr Joe Walsh (FF);<br />
Defence: Mr Michael Smith (FF); Environment & Local Government: Mr Martin<br />
Cullen (FF); Health & Children: Mr Micheál Martin (FF); Education & Science: Mr<br />
Noel Dempsey (FF); Transport: Mr Seamus Brennan (FF); Communications, <strong>the</strong><br />
Marine and Natural Resources: Mr Dermot Ahern (FF); Community, Rural and<br />
Gaeltacht Affairs: Mr Eamon Ó Cuív (FF); Arts, Sport and Tourism: Mr John<br />
O'Donoghue (FF); Social & Family Affairs: Ms Mary Coughlan (FF); Attorney<br />
General: Mr Rory Brady SC; Government Chief Whip (junior ministerial post):<br />
Ms Mary Hanafin (FF); Minister <strong>of</strong> State for <strong>Europe</strong>: Mr Dick Roche (FF).
2002 appointed a Minister <strong>of</strong> State for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs (based in both <strong>the</strong><br />
Departments <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs), 14 o<strong>the</strong>r Ministers <strong>of</strong> State were<br />
also appointed.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is a ranking in <strong>the</strong> perceived importance <strong>of</strong> ministerial portfolios in Cabinet<br />
although ranking departments can be made difficult when departments are<br />
frequently reconfigured with <strong>the</strong> formation <strong>of</strong> a new government. 4 <strong>The</strong> hierarchy <strong>of</strong><br />
ministerial portfolios, and as a consequence, government departments, has evolved<br />
over time and during <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> EU membership. In his 1980 work <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
Administrative System, T.J. Barrington distinguished between three co-ordinating<br />
departments— <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s Department, <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance and <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Economic Planning and Development, while all <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r departments<br />
were classified as operating departments. (Barrington 1980: 24). <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Economic Planning and Development survived for only two years. <strong>The</strong> Barrington<br />
classification does not capture <strong>the</strong> ranking <strong>of</strong> departments that exists in <strong>the</strong><br />
contemporary system.<br />
Box 1 - <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Core Executive 1979<br />
<strong>The</strong> Government<br />
Coordinating Departments:<br />
Taoiseach; Finance; Public Service; Economic Planning and Development<br />
Operating Departments<br />
Agriculture; Defence; Education; Environment; Fisheries and Forestry;<br />
Foreign Affairs; Gaeltacht; Health; Industry, Commerce and Energy;<br />
Justice; Labour; Posts and Telegraphs; Social Welfare; Tourism and<br />
Transport.<br />
Source: (Barrington 1980: 24)<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach is <strong>the</strong> heart <strong>of</strong> Government because it houses <strong>the</strong><br />
Cabinet <strong>of</strong>fice and <strong>the</strong> administrative support structures for <strong>the</strong> prime minister. It<br />
remains a relatively small department (see Section II). Next in line is <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Finance, which is generally accepted as <strong>the</strong> most important line<br />
department because <strong>of</strong> its responsibility for economic management and public<br />
expenditure. <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, which was once regarded as a<br />
4 See footnote 1.
Cinderella department, is now considered a senior department, given its key role in<br />
<strong>the</strong> co-ordination <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union business (Keogh 1990). <strong>The</strong>se three<br />
departments have been referred to as <strong>the</strong> ‘holy trinity’ <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s management <strong>of</strong><br />
EU business (Laffan 2001) and can be characterised as <strong>the</strong> core-core (See Figure 1 –<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Core Executive). <strong>The</strong> EU impinges on <strong>the</strong> business <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
remaining government departments but to differing degrees. By <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong><br />
2002 in particular, a clear division seemed to have emerged between those<br />
operational departments with considerable involvement in EU policy matters and<br />
those where <strong>the</strong> EU impinges less frequently on day-to-day business: <strong>the</strong> inner core<br />
and outer circle. Departments managing a considerable amount <strong>of</strong> EU business<br />
under <strong>the</strong> 1997-2002 Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrat government coalition<br />
included: Agriculture, Environment and Local Government, Enterprise, Trade and<br />
Employment, Justice and Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attorney General. Departments in <strong>the</strong> outer<br />
circle with less involvement in EU matters included: Arts, Heritage and <strong>the</strong><br />
Gaeltacht 5 , Defence, Education and Science, Health and Children, Marine and Natural<br />
Resources 6 , Public Enterprise 7 , Social, Community and Family Affairs 8 and Tourism,<br />
Sport and Recreation. A number <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se departments have single sector<br />
responsibility, such as Agriculture, Environment and Local Government and Justice,<br />
Equality and Law Reform, whereas o<strong>the</strong>rs, such as <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Enterprise,<br />
Trade and Employment and Public Enterprise, deal with multisectoral issues and as a<br />
consequence service more than one EU Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers’ formation.<br />
5 <strong>The</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Arts, Heritage and <strong>the</strong> Gaeltacht and Tourism, Sport and<br />
Recreation were reorganized in June 2002 and became <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Arts, Sport<br />
and Tourism and <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Community, Rural and Gaeltacht affairs<br />
respectively.<br />
6 Became part <strong>of</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Communications, <strong>the</strong> Marine and Natural Resources<br />
in June 2002.<br />
7 Split into <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Transport and <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Communications, <strong>the</strong><br />
Marine and Natural Resources in June 2002.<br />
8 Became Department <strong>of</strong> Social and Family Affairs in June 2002.
Arts, Sport<br />
& Tourism<br />
Health &<br />
Children<br />
Education &<br />
Science<br />
Agriculture<br />
Social &<br />
Family<br />
Affairs<br />
Justice<br />
Foreign<br />
Affairs<br />
Finance<br />
Taoiseach<br />
E,T&<br />
E<br />
Transport<br />
Defence<br />
AG’s Office<br />
Environ.<br />
Communications,<br />
Marine & Natural<br />
Resources<br />
Community<br />
Gaeltacht &<br />
Rural<br />
Figure 1: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Core Executive 2003 9<br />
<strong>The</strong> structures <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive 10 that deal with EU business include: <strong>the</strong><br />
ministries, committees and designated units with responsibility for managing EU<br />
affairs. Given <strong>the</strong> reach <strong>of</strong> EU policies on national policy making, every department<br />
and <strong>of</strong>fice in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive system is required to deal with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Union in some way. <strong>The</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> interaction and need to manage EU business<br />
depends primarily on <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation found in <strong>the</strong> respective policy<br />
domains <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong>fice and department. It is possible to place <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core<br />
executive system’s management <strong>of</strong> EU business on three distinct gradations based<br />
on this criterion: <strong>the</strong> core-core, <strong>the</strong> inner core and <strong>the</strong> outer circle.<br />
9 E,T & E – Enterprise, Trade and Employment; Environ. – Environment; AG’s Office – Attorney General’s<br />
Office.<br />
10 <strong>The</strong> material that forms <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following analysis was ga<strong>the</strong>red from detailed analysis <strong>of</strong><br />
documentary evidence (including strategy statements from government departments) and two extensive<br />
series <strong>of</strong> structured interviews with those involved in managing Ireland’s EU affairs. <strong>The</strong> first round <strong>of</strong><br />
interviews (47 in total) was conducted by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Brigid Laffan as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research carried out<br />
between 1999 and 2000 for Organising for a Changing <strong>Europe</strong>: <strong>Irish</strong> Central Government and <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Union, published in 2001. <strong>The</strong> second round <strong>of</strong> interviews was conducted in <strong>the</strong> first half <strong>of</strong><br />
2002. 30 structured interviews were conducted and interviewees for this stage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project included civil<br />
servants drawn from most departments throughout <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system, and included representatives from<br />
<strong>the</strong> political and parliamentary arenas.
In Ireland, <strong>the</strong> cabinet determines <strong>the</strong> overall policy programme <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government,<br />
it takes all major policy decisions and approves <strong>the</strong> budget and all o<strong>the</strong>r legislation to<br />
be submitted to <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas. It is <strong>the</strong> decision-making body <strong>of</strong> an executive<br />
structure composed <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach, which includes <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Chief Whip, and <strong>the</strong> ministerial departments. As discussed above, because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
convention <strong>of</strong> collective responsibility members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cabinet are bound by, and<br />
must uphold, all cabinet decisions. <strong>The</strong> running and efficiency <strong>of</strong> cabinet meetings is<br />
significantly influenced by <strong>the</strong> personal style <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach involved. <strong>The</strong> cabinet<br />
meets weekly, all ministers are requested to attend, along with <strong>the</strong> Attorney General<br />
and <strong>the</strong> Chief Whip and <strong>the</strong> Secretary General to <strong>the</strong> Government (who is currently<br />
also Secretary General <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach). <strong>The</strong> legislative<br />
programme <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government is drawn up and monitored by <strong>the</strong> Legislative<br />
Committee <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chief Whip. <strong>The</strong> cabinet’s monitoring and<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government’s legislative programme is facilitated by <strong>the</strong><br />
establishment <strong>of</strong> cabinet sub-committees. Although Ireland lacks an<br />
institutionalised system <strong>of</strong> cabinet committees, it does make some use <strong>of</strong> more<br />
informal or ad hoc sub-committees, especially during coalition governments. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
sub-committees have <strong>of</strong>ten been transient in nature ra<strong>the</strong>r than developing into<br />
permanent structures on <strong>the</strong> cabinet landscape. <strong>The</strong> usual explanation is that <strong>the</strong><br />
‘multiple calls on ministers’ time makes it difficult for such committees to meet with<br />
regularity’ (Byrne et al. 1995). In contrast to most o<strong>the</strong>r member states in <strong>the</strong> EU,<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive remains relatively under-institutionalised (O’Leary 1991:<br />
137)<br />
Ministers are charged with setting <strong>the</strong> policy parameters <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir departments and<br />
with making all policy (ra<strong>the</strong>r than administrative) decisions. <strong>The</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
minister for all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activities <strong>of</strong> his/her portfolio known as ‘ministerial<br />
responsibility’ is <strong>the</strong> second constitutional convention that influences how <strong>Irish</strong><br />
Government operates. <strong>The</strong> minister takes decisions, but civil servants have always
played a key role in <strong>the</strong> detailed development and implementation <strong>of</strong> policy in<br />
Ireland.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Civil Service<br />
<strong>The</strong> culture and structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service bear a number <strong>of</strong> similarities to<br />
that <strong>of</strong> Britain. Gallagher, Laver and Mair have characterised <strong>the</strong> British civil service<br />
as ‘generalist’ as opposed to ‘specialist’ (Gallagher, Laver and Mair 2001: 138). This<br />
type <strong>of</strong> bureaucracy is characterised by a heavy reliance on civil servants who are<br />
selected and work on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> general administrative and managerial skills, as<br />
opposed to possessing any particular technical expertise. In <strong>the</strong> recruitment process,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is no emphasis on particular subjects or pr<strong>of</strong>essional expertise. As in Britain,<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial <strong>Irish</strong> civil service culture is non-partisan. Officials are servants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
incumbent Government ra<strong>the</strong>r than political appointees. Civil servants involved in <strong>the</strong><br />
policy making process are barred from political activity. <strong>The</strong> character <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
civil service was summed up by Chubb as<br />
incorruptible, non-partisan, and usually anonymous corps whose members,<br />
secure in <strong>the</strong>ir employment, considered <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong> servants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
legitimate government, whoever <strong>the</strong>y may be (Chubb 1982: 262)<br />
<strong>The</strong> grading system <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service was also inherited from Britain. <strong>The</strong><br />
general service is divided between <strong>the</strong> clerical grades, <strong>the</strong> executive grades and <strong>the</strong><br />
higher civil service. <strong>The</strong> higher civil service consists <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Secretaries General at <strong>the</strong><br />
apex <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pyramid, in some departments Second Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries,<br />
Principal Officers and Assistant Principals. <strong>The</strong> Principal Officers form <strong>the</strong> operating<br />
core <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system as <strong>the</strong>y act as head <strong>of</strong> divisions. Since <strong>the</strong> mid-1980s, <strong>Irish</strong><br />
ministers have also employed political or policy advisors who work alongside <strong>the</strong><br />
Minister and senior civil servants and have an input into policy formulation and<br />
management. In <strong>the</strong> 1993-1997 Governments, <strong>the</strong> system <strong>of</strong> policy advisors was<br />
institutionalised when each minister appointed a programme manager. <strong>The</strong><br />
programme managers were an important filter between <strong>the</strong> administrative and<br />
political level and helped in <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> Cabinet discussions. <strong>The</strong> system <strong>of</strong><br />
programme managers has persisted but with fewer policy advisory staff.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service has undergone a number <strong>of</strong> limited or episodic reforms since<br />
<strong>the</strong> inception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Free State in 1922. <strong>The</strong> Ministers and Secretaries Act <strong>of</strong> 1924<br />
defined <strong>the</strong> legal and political relationship between ministers and civil servants until<br />
it was replaced by <strong>the</strong> Public Service Management Act <strong>of</strong> 1997. Under <strong>the</strong> Ministers<br />
and Secretaries Act, ministers were legally responsible for everything done by <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials, from <strong>the</strong> formulation <strong>of</strong> policy and <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> departments to <strong>the</strong><br />
most minor clerical tasks. Little or no effort was made to reform <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil<br />
service until <strong>the</strong> 1960s when it was seriously considered by <strong>the</strong> Fianna Fáil<br />
Taoiseach, Seán Lemass and Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance, T.K. Whitaker<br />
(Lee 1989: 546-556). <strong>The</strong> Public Service Organisation Review Group (PSORG) was<br />
established in 1966 under <strong>the</strong> chairmanship <strong>of</strong> Liam Devlin to consider reforms to <strong>the</strong><br />
public service as a whole. This group’s report, <strong>the</strong> Devlin Report, published in 1969,<br />
proposed significant reforms to <strong>the</strong> system, most notably <strong>the</strong> recommendation that<br />
policy formulation be separated from policy implementation. According to <strong>the</strong> Devlin<br />
Report, a distinct policy-making group <strong>of</strong> senior <strong>of</strong>ficials in every department should,<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> minister, form <strong>the</strong> policy-making body (called <strong>the</strong> Aireacht), while<br />
<strong>the</strong> execution <strong>of</strong> policy should be devolved to executive <strong>of</strong>fices (Lee 1989: 548). <strong>The</strong><br />
proposed change was modelled on <strong>the</strong> separation <strong>of</strong> policy making and<br />
implementation in <strong>the</strong> Swedish administrative system. Insufficient support for <strong>the</strong><br />
radical reform proposed by Devlin meant that its key recommendation was never<br />
implemented. Procrastination on <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> administrative reform led to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
civil service acquiring a ‘reputation <strong>of</strong> over-cautious conservatism’. 11 Although <strong>the</strong><br />
Devlin Report coincided with Ireland’s final push for EU membership, it paid no<br />
attention to <strong>the</strong> administrative and organisational consequences <strong>of</strong> EU membership.<br />
<strong>The</strong> next serious consideration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> role and nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> civil service was<br />
undertaken in <strong>the</strong> mid-1980s and resulted in <strong>the</strong> publication <strong>of</strong> a White Paper in<br />
1985, <strong>Managing</strong> <strong>the</strong> Country Better, which again tried to address some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues<br />
originally raised in <strong>the</strong> Devlin Report. Given <strong>the</strong> difficult economic situation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
country at this time, reforms that were proposed tended to be couched in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
staff numbers and <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> running <strong>the</strong> civil service. Beginning in 1984 however,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re were a number <strong>of</strong> important innovations that led to cultural change in <strong>the</strong><br />
service. <strong>The</strong> Top Level Appointments Committee was established with a mandate to<br />
11 This was <strong>the</strong> conclusion <strong>of</strong> a group <strong>of</strong> businessmen and economists appointed by<br />
<strong>the</strong> government in 1984 to review <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> economic situation. Proposals for a Plan,<br />
Dublin, 1984. Reproduced from Lee, 1989.
encourage mobility across departments and to ensure that appointments to <strong>the</strong><br />
upper echelons <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> service were based on merit ra<strong>the</strong>r than seniority. In addition,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Secretaries <strong>of</strong> departments began to hold an annual conference, which in turn led<br />
to system wide discussion <strong>of</strong> issues and <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> a certain esprit de corps<br />
among senior civil servants. <strong>The</strong> cultural changes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1980s, in addition to <strong>the</strong><br />
deficiencies highlighted by <strong>the</strong> budgetary crisis, tribunals <strong>of</strong> enquiry and reports such<br />
as <strong>the</strong> Industrial Policy Review Group (1991) placed reform back on <strong>the</strong> agenda.<br />
Questions about <strong>the</strong> effective performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> civil service, particularly in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
public sector management became commonplace.<br />
<strong>The</strong> most significant reform <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service began in 1994 with <strong>the</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Strategic Management Initiative (SMI) introduced by <strong>the</strong><br />
government as an attempt to enhance strategic and administrative capabilities in <strong>the</strong><br />
civil service. <strong>The</strong> SMI process must be seen in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> spread <strong>of</strong> what has<br />
been termed new public management (NPM) in <strong>the</strong> industrialised world. Although<br />
endorsed by <strong>the</strong> Government, <strong>the</strong> SMI was in many ways a mandarin led process, a<br />
quiet revolution in <strong>the</strong> system. Delivering Better Government published in 1996<br />
outlined an extensive modernisation process for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil and public service and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Public Service Management Act (1997) introduced a new management structure<br />
in <strong>the</strong> civil service. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service found itself part <strong>of</strong> a new climate <strong>of</strong><br />
reflection and evaluation and <strong>the</strong> modernization programme envisaged by <strong>the</strong><br />
Strategic Management Initiative and Delivering Better Government (SMI/DBG)<br />
represented <strong>the</strong> outcome <strong>of</strong> this reassessment. <strong>The</strong> 1997 Act’s purpose was to<br />
enhance <strong>the</strong> management, effectiveness and transparency <strong>of</strong> Departments and<br />
Offices and to put in place a mechanism for increased accountability <strong>of</strong> civil servants.<br />
<strong>The</strong> most visible transformation in how <strong>the</strong> civil service conducts its business came<br />
with openness, transparency and accountability. Each Department is obliged to<br />
produce both strategy statements and business plans. With <strong>the</strong> Freedom <strong>of</strong><br />
Information Act, members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> public, or ‘customers’, are entitled greater access to<br />
documents. In June 2001, a consulting firm, PA Consulting, was commissioned by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach to review progress achieved under <strong>the</strong> Public<br />
Service Modernisation programme. A number <strong>of</strong> its findings, published in March<br />
2002, have a bearing on Ireland’s management <strong>of</strong> EU business. On a general note,<br />
<strong>the</strong> review concluded that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service in 2002 was better managed and
more effective than it was in 1992. <strong>The</strong>y noted that <strong>the</strong> civil service had mapped out<br />
a transition path from a traditional administrative culture to a more overtly<br />
managerial one. <strong>The</strong> SMI/DBG process has undoubtedly been significant in this<br />
transition. However, <strong>the</strong> report stressed that this process was not complete and<br />
factors such as industrial relations structures (i.e. <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> strong trade<br />
unions and staff associations) and differential economic circumstances also affect <strong>the</strong><br />
pace <strong>of</strong> change within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service (PA Consulting 2002: 83). <strong>The</strong> Report<br />
also contains a number <strong>of</strong> important and more specific findings that are <strong>of</strong> direct<br />
relevance to this study.<br />
First, apart from acknowledging that Ireland’s membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU served as an<br />
important backdrop in evolving <strong>the</strong> modernization agenda, with <strong>the</strong> EU emerging as<br />
a key determinant shaping critical components <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legislative, policy and<br />
institutional framework, <strong>the</strong> challenges and opportunities membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
poses to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service were not explicitly addressed in <strong>the</strong> report. This lack<br />
<strong>of</strong> emphasis is also reflected in <strong>the</strong> SMI/DBG programme as a whole. <strong>The</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> EU business as such is not viewed as a special category <strong>of</strong> work that<br />
poses particular challenges and demands sustained attention within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system.<br />
Second, PA Consulting found that <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> change through <strong>the</strong><br />
SMI/DBG has been uneven across civil service components and across<br />
Departments/<strong>of</strong>fices (PA Consulting 2002: 32). This is a crucial point to note in <strong>the</strong><br />
context <strong>of</strong> this study as it shows that not only can <strong>the</strong> EU impact differentially on<br />
each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national member state administrations, it also can have a differential<br />
impact within administrations as some departments/<strong>of</strong>fices may be more receptive to<br />
change and adaptation than o<strong>the</strong>rs. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service is not a<br />
monolith in terms <strong>of</strong> its management <strong>of</strong> EU business.<br />
Third, <strong>the</strong> review found that while <strong>the</strong> SMI/DBG focused on and has achieved<br />
tangible results in <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> public management reform, o<strong>the</strong>r areas <strong>of</strong><br />
government, i.e. governance 12 and policy making 13 , have not received adequate<br />
12 Defined as <strong>the</strong> manner in which parliament exercises its oversight responsibilities<br />
in relation to <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> public business and <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> public services.<br />
13 Defined as <strong>the</strong> manner in which ministers interpret <strong>the</strong> programme for<br />
government, identify priority areas <strong>of</strong> public need, and resolve competing service<br />
demands in a resource constrained environment.
attention in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> service. In some instances <strong>the</strong> report found that <strong>the</strong> linkages<br />
between policy formation and strategy design are weak and <strong>the</strong> debate around policy<br />
formulation and strategy design is underdeveloped:<br />
This area <strong>of</strong> civil service governance needs to be streng<strong>the</strong>ned. Our<br />
observations lead us to believe <strong>the</strong>re is greater scope for alignment between<br />
political intent, strategy development, business planning and service delivery.<br />
Consequently, Ministers can feel that <strong>the</strong>y have been distanced from <strong>the</strong><br />
(real) day-to-day business <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department/<strong>of</strong>fice, while civil servants can<br />
believe <strong>the</strong>y are struggling with an ambiguous policy direction (PA Consulting<br />
2002: 26).<br />
Finally, <strong>the</strong> review found that <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> collaborative arrangements to deal<br />
with cross-cutting issues remains at a relatively immature stage in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil<br />
service (PA Consulting 2002: 39,88). <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service is now increasingly<br />
required to deal with <strong>of</strong> a cross-cutting nature, including many cross-cutting EU<br />
issues. <strong>The</strong> SMI/DBG programme acknowledged <strong>the</strong> need for new approaches to<br />
managing cross-cutting issues and recommended <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> crossdepartmental<br />
teams working to detailed and time-specific objectives. Section 12 <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Public Service Management Act 1997 enabled Ministers to collaborate with each<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r on cross-departmental issues (through cabinet sub-committees and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
interdepartmental groups) and to assign responsibility to civil servants for such<br />
issues. However, heret<strong>of</strong>ore, efforts to co-operate on cross-cutting issues have<br />
tended to be loosely-based and ad hoc. In essence, while <strong>the</strong> core executive has<br />
identified issues <strong>of</strong> a cross-cutting nature that need to be dealt with, <strong>the</strong> mechanisms<br />
for systematic and routine management <strong>of</strong> cross-cutting issues have yet to appear<br />
(PA Consulting 2002: 43). This brief analysis <strong>of</strong> attempts to reform <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil<br />
service points to its institutional stickiness but also highlights <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong><br />
cumulative incremental change.<br />
Origins, Development and Change in <strong>the</strong> Management <strong>of</strong> EU Issues<br />
Four periods <strong>of</strong> development and change have had an impact on how Ireland’s<br />
management <strong>of</strong> EU business evolved. <strong>The</strong>se were <strong>the</strong> formative period from <strong>the</strong> end<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1950s to accession in 1972, <strong>the</strong> first three years <strong>of</strong> membership 1973-1975,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> period 1988 to 1990 when <strong>the</strong> resurgence <strong>of</strong> formal integration became
evident. <strong>The</strong> ‘no’ to Nice referendum in 2001 triggered a fur<strong>the</strong>r period <strong>of</strong> review and<br />
evaluation that is continuing. This section traces <strong>the</strong>se critical junctures and <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
impact on managing EU business. In addition, it will trace <strong>the</strong> system <strong>of</strong><br />
parliamentary scrutiny that evolved in Ireland.<br />
Box 2:<br />
Dates <strong>of</strong> developments relevant to Ireland’s preparation for membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EEC<br />
1956 October 11 Committee <strong>of</strong> Secretaries established to initially consider Ireland’s<br />
position in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> relations between <strong>the</strong> EEC and <strong>the</strong> OEEC<br />
1959 December Ireland established diplomatic relations with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Economic<br />
Community<br />
1961 July <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> government published a White Paper on <strong>the</strong> EEC<br />
1961 July 31 Ireland’s application to join <strong>the</strong> EEC was sent to <strong>the</strong> Council<br />
1961 September<br />
5-13<br />
<strong>The</strong> Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance, Dr. Whitaker and <strong>the</strong><br />
Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> External Affairs, Mr. Cremin visited<br />
<strong>the</strong> capitals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Six Member States<br />
1962 June 28 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Government published a White Paper on <strong>the</strong> EEC<br />
1962 October <strong>The</strong> Prime Minister, Mr. Lemass, undertook a <strong>Europe</strong>an tour to meet<br />
<strong>the</strong> leaders <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> six Member States and <strong>the</strong> President <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Commission<br />
1962 October 22 Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EEC decided to open negotiations on Ireland’s<br />
application for membership<br />
1963 January Breakdown <strong>of</strong> negotiations with Britain, Denmark and Norway on<br />
membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Economic Community<br />
1963 October Aide Mémoire sent by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Government to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Commission concerning arrangements for periodic contacts<br />
1966 July <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Government decided to accredit a separate diplomatic<br />
mission to <strong>the</strong> Eureopean Communities<br />
1967 April <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Government published a White Paper on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Economic Community<br />
1967 May 11 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Government submitted an application for membership <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Economic Community<br />
1967 June -<br />
November<br />
<strong>The</strong> Prime Minister, Mr. Lynch and <strong>the</strong> Minister for Finance, Mr.<br />
Haughey accompanied by Dr. Whitaker, Secretary, Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Finance and Mr. McCann, Secretary, Department <strong>of</strong> External Affairs<br />
undertook as series <strong>of</strong> bilateral discussions with <strong>the</strong> Governments <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> six Member States<br />
1970 April <strong>The</strong> Government published <strong>the</strong> White Paper<br />
‘Membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities-Implications for Ireland’<br />
1970 May 27 <strong>The</strong> Prime Minister, Mr. J. Lynch, announced <strong>the</strong> delegation which<br />
negotiated membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities<br />
1970 June 30 ‘Conference between <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities and <strong>the</strong> States<br />
applying for membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se Communities’<br />
Formal opening <strong>of</strong> negotiations in Luxembourg with Ireland, United<br />
Kingdom, Denmark and Norway<br />
1972 January 22 <strong>The</strong> Taoiseach, Mr. J. Lynch, and <strong>the</strong> Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr.<br />
P. J. Hillery signed <strong>the</strong> instruments <strong>of</strong> accession in <strong>the</strong> Palais<br />
d’Egmont, Brussels<br />
1972 January <strong>The</strong> Government published <strong>the</strong> White Paper ‘<strong>The</strong> Accession <strong>of</strong><br />
Ireland to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities’<br />
1972 May 10 Referendum held on Ireland’s membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Communities with 83% voting in favour and 17% against
Ireland’s approach to <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> its engagement with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union<br />
was established in <strong>the</strong> latter half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1950s as its policy makers sought to chart its<br />
external policy in <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> significant changes and institution building in Western<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>. During <strong>the</strong> Maudling talks in 1956, <strong>the</strong> Committee <strong>of</strong> Secretaries began to<br />
meet to map Ireland’s response to <strong>the</strong> calls for increased economic co-operation in<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>. A Government decision (9 October 1956) decided that a committee, chaired<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach, which included <strong>the</strong> Secretaries<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong> Finance, Industry and Commerce, Agriculture and External<br />
Affairs would begin to examine <strong>the</strong> consequences <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se developments for Ireland<br />
(Maher 1986: 57). <strong>The</strong> Committee <strong>of</strong> Secretaries, consisting as it did <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Secretaries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most important domestic ministries, formed <strong>the</strong> nucleus <strong>of</strong> what<br />
would become Ireland’s core executive on EU affairs. <strong>The</strong> driving force behind <strong>the</strong><br />
Committee was <strong>the</strong> Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance, Mr. Ken Whitaker,<br />
secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pre-eminent ministry in central government. <strong>The</strong> key conflict that<br />
emerged in this committee was between Ken Whitaker, who had concluded that<br />
Ireland needed to embrace liberalisation and move with <strong>the</strong> changing economy, and<br />
Mr. J.C.B. McCarthy, Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Industry and Commerce, who<br />
was determined to protect <strong>Irish</strong> industry and exports. <strong>The</strong> resolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> conflict<br />
was central to mapping Ireland’s external economic policy as its key <strong>of</strong>ficials and <strong>the</strong><br />
Government sought to manage <strong>the</strong> dynamic changes in <strong>Europe</strong>’s political economy<br />
and <strong>the</strong> institutionalisation <strong>of</strong> those changes in trade blocs (Maher 1986).<br />
<strong>From</strong> <strong>the</strong> outset, <strong>the</strong> mapping <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s <strong>Europe</strong>an policy and <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong><br />
EU business was cross-cutting in nature, given <strong>the</strong> involvement <strong>of</strong> key senior <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />
from <strong>the</strong> main government departments. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> EU was not a matter <strong>of</strong><br />
foreign policy although <strong>the</strong> external dimension <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Union was clearly<br />
acknowledged. Ireland opened formal diplomatic relations with <strong>the</strong> EU in 1959 when<br />
its Ambassador to Belgium was also accredited to <strong>the</strong> EU. A Government decision in<br />
July 1966 led to a separate accreditation in 1967. This decision signalled <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
government’s expectation that enlargement negotiations would commence within a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> years and its wish to be ready to pursue those negotiations with vigour.<br />
Following <strong>the</strong> resolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘empty chair’ crisis in <strong>the</strong> Union, <strong>the</strong> tempo <strong>of</strong><br />
Ireland’s relations with <strong>the</strong> Union accelerated after 1967 when <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister,
Seán Lemass conducted a series <strong>of</strong> bilateral meetings with <strong>the</strong> Commission and <strong>the</strong><br />
member states, accompanied by <strong>the</strong> Minister for Finance. A striking feature <strong>of</strong> this<br />
period was <strong>the</strong> limited role played by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Foreign Minister, Mr. Frank Aiken, who<br />
had little to do with <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s approach for managing EU issues.<br />
He opposed <strong>the</strong> opening <strong>of</strong> a separate accreditation to <strong>the</strong> EU in 1967 but was overruled<br />
by his colleagues. <strong>The</strong> Prime Minister, senior domestic ministers and a small<br />
group <strong>of</strong> senior civil servants played <strong>the</strong> key role in charting Ireland’s relationship<br />
with <strong>the</strong> system. <strong>The</strong> Committee <strong>of</strong> Secretaries provided <strong>the</strong> forum for interministerial<br />
discussion on <strong>the</strong> key issues and <strong>the</strong> Cabinet agreed <strong>the</strong> political<br />
framework within which <strong>the</strong> relationship would evolve. <strong>The</strong> development <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an policy received sustained political and administrative attention throughout<br />
<strong>the</strong> late 1950s and 1960s.<br />
<strong>The</strong> second period July 1970 to January 1972 was dominated by <strong>the</strong> accession<br />
negotiations. By <strong>the</strong>n, a new Foreign Minister Dr. Patrick Hillary, who later became<br />
Ireland’s first Commissioner, asserted his role and led <strong>the</strong> negotiations on<br />
membership. As <strong>the</strong> prospect <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s entry became manifest, a battle was<br />
fought between Foreign Affairs and Finance as to who would lead <strong>the</strong> negotiations.<br />
Foreign Affairs’ victory in this set <strong>the</strong> tone for <strong>the</strong> post-membership role <strong>of</strong> Foreign<br />
Affairs. <strong>The</strong> minister’s team for <strong>the</strong> negotiations consisted <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> secretaries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
key Government departments, again highlighting <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> negotiations to<br />
<strong>the</strong> main home departments. Because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> focus on <strong>the</strong> membership negotiations,<br />
little attention was paid in <strong>the</strong> period leading up to membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> challenge <strong>of</strong><br />
living with <strong>the</strong> system after accession. Unlike <strong>the</strong> UK and Denmark, <strong>the</strong>re was a<br />
paucity <strong>of</strong> deliberation <strong>of</strong> how best to manage EU business.<br />
<strong>The</strong> main circular (CH/177/35) that established how EU business should be handled<br />
was issued by <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs in September 1973, nine months<br />
after accession. <strong>The</strong> period between January 1973 and <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s first<br />
Presidency in December 1975 were Ireland’s apprenticeship in <strong>the</strong> EU system. During<br />
this period <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Governmental system put in place structures and processes for<br />
managing <strong>the</strong> relationship with Brussels. <strong>The</strong> key features <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system were:<br />
• Responsibility for day-to-day co-ordination on EU matters was assigned to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs. This constituted a break with <strong>the</strong> past,
as <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance was <strong>the</strong> lead department in <strong>the</strong> period<br />
leading up to membership. It required a Government decision to finally<br />
resolve <strong>the</strong> conflict between Foreign Affairs and Finance. <strong>The</strong> department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs given its position in <strong>the</strong> Permanent representation was<br />
responsible for ‘A’ points on Council agendas.<br />
• Although responsibility for day-to-day co-ordination was given to Foreign<br />
Affairs, <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance continued to play an important role as<br />
any EU proposals that might lead to a cost to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Exchequer required<br />
<strong>the</strong> prior approval <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> principle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lead department was firmly<br />
established. <strong>The</strong> Circular has numerous references to ‘ <strong>the</strong> responsibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department primarily responsible for <strong>the</strong> subject matter concerned’<br />
concerning briefings, representation at meetings, reporting and<br />
implementation. Individual departments were responsible from <strong>the</strong> outset<br />
for co-ordinating preparations for Council meetings falling within <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
policy domain.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> dominance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lead department is framed however within <strong>the</strong><br />
parameters <strong>of</strong> a political and administrative culture governed by collective<br />
responsibility and an ethos <strong>of</strong> consultation <strong>of</strong> ‘all interested’ departments.<br />
• Processes and guidelines were established for <strong>the</strong> writing <strong>of</strong> reports and<br />
<strong>the</strong> circulation <strong>of</strong> EU documents throughout <strong>the</strong> administration and to <strong>the</strong><br />
Oireachtas Joint Committee on Secondary Legislation.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> key structure with responsibility for overall policy in relation to <strong>the</strong><br />
Union was <strong>the</strong> newly established Interdepartmental <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Communities Committee, which replaced <strong>the</strong> Committee <strong>of</strong> Secretaries<br />
that charted Ireland’s original engagement with <strong>the</strong> system. This<br />
committee was chaired by <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs. Its<br />
membership - Foreign Affairs, Taoiseach, Finance, Agriculture and<br />
Fisheries and Industry and Commerce - highlighted <strong>the</strong> key ministries on<br />
EU matters in <strong>the</strong> original phase <strong>of</strong> membership. It met in two formats, at<br />
<strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> Secretary and at Assistant Secretary level. <strong>The</strong> latter format<br />
was intended to prepare <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Secretaries’ Committee. In<br />
practice, <strong>the</strong> Committee began to meet at Assistant Secretary level after<br />
<strong>the</strong> initial phase <strong>of</strong> membership. Eleven interdepartmental policy groups<br />
were established in this initial phase.
• <strong>The</strong> Cabinet was responsible for <strong>the</strong> broad political direction <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s<br />
engagement with <strong>the</strong> Union. A minute from <strong>the</strong> department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Taoiseach in 1974 instructed that <strong>the</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs,<br />
Industry and Commerce and Agriculture and Fisheries and Finance would<br />
be consulted on all memoranda to <strong>the</strong> Government that had a bearing on<br />
Ireland’s membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU. A Cabinet Sub-Committee on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Communities was also established at this time. It was envisaged<br />
that it would make recommendations to <strong>the</strong> government on EU matters<br />
and decide on matters referred to it by <strong>the</strong> full Cabinet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> initial phase <strong>of</strong> adaptation was characterised by <strong>the</strong> formalisation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
approach in a circular from <strong>the</strong> Foreign Ministry that set out <strong>the</strong> structures and<br />
processes for managing EU matters. <strong>The</strong>re was very little institution building in <strong>the</strong><br />
form <strong>of</strong> new structures, ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re was a reliance on <strong>the</strong> adaptation <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
structures within <strong>the</strong> broad parameters <strong>of</strong> collective responsibility and ministerial<br />
responsibility, <strong>the</strong> established conventions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Government. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
administration faced <strong>the</strong> challenge <strong>of</strong> adapting to <strong>the</strong> Brussels system with limited<br />
human resources. At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> 1973, one year into membership <strong>the</strong> Minister for<br />
Foreign Affairs, Dr. Garret FitzGerald concluded that:<br />
<strong>The</strong> first ten months <strong>of</strong> Community membership have placed an enormous<br />
strain on this country’s human resources in <strong>the</strong> public service and in many<br />
vocational bodies whose interests are affected by membership. We were<br />
simply not prepared for all that membership entails. In my own department<br />
<strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> staff hi<strong>the</strong>rto available for EEC work has fallen short by onethird<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> absolute minimum to undertake this task in a manner that will<br />
safeguard <strong>Irish</strong> vital interests (FitzGerald 1973).<br />
New posts were created in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil service to accommodate <strong>the</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
membership. However <strong>the</strong>re was a relatively small increase in full time non-industrial<br />
civil servants as a result <strong>of</strong> EU membership. In 1980, it was estimated that a total <strong>of</strong><br />
1391 new posts had been created to manage <strong>the</strong> work arising from EU membership.<br />
<strong>The</strong> total Civil Service complement in that year was 53, 822.
<strong>The</strong> preparations for <strong>the</strong> 1975 Presidency were critical to Ireland’s adjustment to EU<br />
membership. <strong>The</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> running a Presidency ensured that departmental<br />
responsibility for different policy areas was clearly delineated and management <strong>of</strong><br />
Council business meant that Government ministers and <strong>of</strong>ficials became au fait with<br />
<strong>the</strong> nuts and bolts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Union’s policy process. <strong>The</strong> Government prepared<br />
extremely well for <strong>the</strong> Presidency and was determined that a small and relatively<br />
new member state would be seen to manage <strong>the</strong> Union’s business. <strong>The</strong> experience <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Presidency also had a very beneficial effect on <strong>the</strong> psychological environment <strong>of</strong><br />
national policy makers. <strong>The</strong>reafter, <strong>the</strong> Union became an accepted albeit<br />
complicating factor in national decision making.<br />
<strong>The</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> apprenticeship period did not mean that Ireland had such a well-oiled<br />
machine for managing EU business, that all problems and difficulties had been<br />
solved. In 1978 <strong>the</strong> department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Public Service carried out a review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> EU business and although it did not produce a final report some <strong>of</strong><br />
its deliberations later appear in a 1981 OECD report on Adapting Public<br />
Administration For Participating in Supranational Bodies (OECD 1981). <strong>The</strong> key<br />
problems identified in <strong>the</strong> report were:<br />
Organisation: <strong>The</strong>re were disputes about who should play <strong>the</strong> lead role with<br />
some departments reluctant to take on issues in which <strong>the</strong>y might have an<br />
interest but did not want <strong>the</strong> lead responsibility.<br />
Policy: <strong>The</strong>re was scarcely any attempt to review systematically <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong><br />
EU policies and <strong>the</strong> need to develop and document clear policy guidelines so<br />
that delegates could effectively participate in EC meetings. <strong>The</strong> report<br />
highlighted that an ad hoc approach to policy guidelines, which was evident in<br />
certain areas, had serious limitations.<br />
Co-ordination: A failure was identified to engage in effective consultation with<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r departments in some instances. <strong>The</strong> limited role <strong>of</strong> departmental coordination<br />
units and <strong>the</strong> diffusion <strong>of</strong> co-ordination responsibility within certain<br />
departments was highlighted.<br />
Procedures: <strong>The</strong>re was some evidence <strong>of</strong> an excessive circulation <strong>of</strong><br />
documents, a certain failure to observe procedures concerning <strong>the</strong> circulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> reports <strong>of</strong> meetings, and a lack <strong>of</strong> co-ordination concerning attendance at
meetings and an inconsistency in <strong>the</strong> grading levels decided on by different<br />
Departments. (OECD, 1981, 15-18).<br />
<strong>The</strong> OECD report, which contained material from <strong>the</strong> deliberations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Public Service review in 1978, highlighted <strong>the</strong> fact that although <strong>the</strong> broad<br />
parameters <strong>of</strong> how Ireland managed EU business was institutionalised between 1973<br />
and 1975, some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> structures and procedures established by <strong>the</strong> 1973 Circular<br />
did not really become operational. <strong>The</strong> Cabinet Sub-Committee met rarely and<br />
gradually fell into abeyance, as did <strong>the</strong> interdepartmental policy groups. An ad hoc,<br />
agenda driven approach to managing EU business took root, which allowed for<br />
considerable departmental autonomy and an informal manner <strong>of</strong> dealing with<br />
Brussels. Although formal interdepartmental structures were set up, <strong>the</strong>y did not<br />
become institutionalised parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system.<br />
<strong>The</strong> third important period in <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s approach to EU matters<br />
was between 1987 and 1990 – marked by <strong>the</strong> signature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Single <strong>Europe</strong>an Act<br />
(SEA), <strong>the</strong> negotiation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Delors I package and <strong>the</strong> 1990 Presidency. <strong>The</strong><br />
referendum on <strong>the</strong> SEA, <strong>the</strong> work arising from <strong>the</strong> single market programme and <strong>the</strong><br />
negotiations and implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first national development plan placed new<br />
demands on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Government and central administration. <strong>The</strong>se events<br />
coincided with a new Government and a Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, who<br />
adopted a strong leadership role in Cabinet when he took over in February 1987. His<br />
administration made three important changes. First, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities<br />
Committee which used be chaired by an Assistant Secretary from Foreign Affairs was<br />
transferred to <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach and <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> chair was given to a<br />
new political <strong>of</strong>fice holder, <strong>the</strong> Minister for State for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs. Second, he set<br />
up a high level Committee <strong>of</strong> Ministers and Secretaries that met once a week in <strong>the</strong><br />
period leading up to Ireland’s submission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Development Plan to <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission in March 1989. <strong>The</strong> committee met frequently in <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister’s<br />
home and was attended mostly by departmental secretaries with <strong>the</strong> intermittent<br />
participation <strong>of</strong> ministers. A more restricted version <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Committee planned <strong>the</strong><br />
1990 Presidency. When <strong>the</strong> Presidency was over in July 1990, <strong>the</strong> interdepartmental<br />
co-ordination machinery fell into abeyance. A new Taoiseach, Mr. Albert Reynolds<br />
reactivated <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities Committee in February 1992 with a political<br />
chair. <strong>The</strong> third change initiated in <strong>the</strong> Haughey era was <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> seven
egions in 1988 in response to Commission demands for consultation and partnership<br />
in <strong>the</strong> planning and implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Development Plan. <strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> changes under Haughey was to signal <strong>the</strong> growing involvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach<br />
and his department in <strong>the</strong> overall management <strong>of</strong> EU business.<br />
<strong>The</strong> fourth period <strong>of</strong> significant review and evaluation <strong>of</strong> how EU business is handled<br />
occurred as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> deep shock to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system following <strong>the</strong> ‘no’ to Nice in<br />
June 2001. Prior to this event, Ireland managed to portray itself as a constructive<br />
player in <strong>the</strong> Union with a relatively communautaire approach in general. Successive<br />
Governments could pursue <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>Europe</strong>an policies in a benign domestic<br />
environment. <strong>The</strong> ‘no’ to Nice and <strong>the</strong> low turnout in <strong>the</strong> referendum (34 per cent) <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> electorate highlighted <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> Government could no longer take its<br />
voters for granted. Ireland’s <strong>Europe</strong>an policy was loose <strong>of</strong> its moorings, which in turn<br />
led to considerable soul searching at <strong>of</strong>ficial and political level <strong>of</strong> how EU business<br />
was managed and how <strong>Europe</strong> was communicated at national level. <strong>The</strong><br />
consequences <strong>of</strong> this review for how <strong>Europe</strong>an issues are dealt with are outlined in<br />
<strong>the</strong> substantive sections <strong>of</strong> this report.<br />
Scrutiny <strong>of</strong> EU Legislation in Ireland<br />
As discussed in Section I, Ireland’s law-making procedure is closely based, in <strong>the</strong><br />
letter and in <strong>the</strong> spirit, on that <strong>of</strong> Westminster. Because <strong>the</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> a strong<br />
committee system was not part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Westminster system in 1922, it did not form<br />
part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> original procedures <strong>of</strong> Oireachtas Eireann ei<strong>the</strong>r. Following membership<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EEC in 1973, <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas lost <strong>the</strong> ‘sole and exclusive power <strong>of</strong> making laws’<br />
bestowed on it by Article 15.2.1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> constitution (Coakley and Gallagher, 1999).<br />
Considerable parliamentary pressure for <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> a ‘watchdog’<br />
committee on draft Community proposals grew as a consequence. This led to <strong>the</strong><br />
creation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Joint Oireachtas Committee on <strong>the</strong> Secondary Legislation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Communities in July 1973.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Joint Committee had twenty-five members (eighteen deputies and seven<br />
senators) and members operated through four sub-committees which, meeting in<br />
private, examined proposals and instruments in <strong>the</strong> first instance, studied<br />
memoranda received from Government departments and outside bodies and<br />
interviewed civil servants and representatives <strong>of</strong> interested organisations. In order
to ensure adequate servicing <strong>of</strong> its four sub-committees <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee<br />
originally sought an allocation <strong>of</strong> fourteen <strong>of</strong>ficials toge<strong>the</strong>r with secretarial<br />
assistance. In <strong>the</strong> end, <strong>the</strong> actual allocation made to <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee was much<br />
more modest, consisting <strong>of</strong> a Clerk, an Assistant Clerk and two Higher Executive<br />
Officers, toge<strong>the</strong>r with secretarial assistance (Robinson, 1979, 17-8). This constraint<br />
on financial and technical resources was to continue throughout its existence.<br />
At first glance, <strong>the</strong> committee’s output <strong>of</strong> reports on legislation appears impressive.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> first four years <strong>of</strong> its existence, <strong>the</strong> committee published 59 reports.<br />
However, most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se reports were <strong>of</strong> a technical nature and drafted by <strong>the</strong><br />
committee’s secretariat. Thus <strong>the</strong> subject matter, though <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>of</strong> great importance<br />
to persons directly concerned, did not lend itself to formal debate. Both Houses <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Oireachtas were not obliged to debate any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reports and, while a significant<br />
number were discussed in <strong>the</strong> Seanad, in <strong>the</strong> period from 1978 to 1989 only three<br />
reports were debated in <strong>the</strong> Dáil. 14 In addition, <strong>the</strong> Committee did not have a<br />
mandate to examine major changes in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an landscape.<br />
In its review <strong>of</strong> functions in 1991, <strong>the</strong> sixth Joint Committee recommended that its<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> reference be expanded to include <strong>the</strong> power to examine all proposals<br />
affecting <strong>the</strong> Community’s development. It noted that if <strong>the</strong> committee was to be<br />
more effective in carrying out its tasks, it would require greater secretarial resources<br />
and greater scope for employing consultants and outside experts. It also called for a<br />
formal mechanism to be put in place for debating <strong>the</strong> reports <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee<br />
in both Houses <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas. 15 Instead <strong>of</strong> reforming <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee on<br />
Secondary Legislation in <strong>the</strong> aftermath <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Maastricht referendum and <strong>the</strong><br />
formation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fianna Fáil/Labour Party coalition government, a new Joint<br />
Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs was set up in 1993. <strong>The</strong> Joint Committee<br />
on Secondary Legislation was reconstituted as <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Affairs.<br />
<strong>From</strong> 1997 to 2002, staff <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Committee included a clerk, two<br />
administrators and one half-time policy advisor. A consultancy firm was also<br />
employed by <strong>the</strong> Committee. At <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 28 th Oireachtas (1997-2002, total<br />
14 41 reports were debated in <strong>the</strong> Seanad from May 1978 to February 1989. <strong>The</strong><br />
three reports debated in <strong>the</strong> Dáil were: Action in <strong>the</strong> Cultural Sector (1978),<br />
Financing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Community Budget (1979) and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Parliament Draft<br />
Treaty Establishing <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union (1985).<br />
15 Sixth Joint Committee on <strong>the</strong> Secondary Legislation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities<br />
Report No.7, Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Functions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee, 13 February 1991.
membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs committee stood at 19 (14 Deputies, 5<br />
Senators). Between 1999 and 2001, <strong>the</strong> Committee issued no reports and published<br />
one report on <strong>the</strong> enlargement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU in 2002. MEPs who did not hold a dual<br />
mandate were allowed to attend and participate in committee meetings (but not<br />
vote), thus trying to establish some link between <strong>the</strong> national and <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Parliament. However, because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir commitments in <strong>Europe</strong>, MEPs have found<br />
that <strong>the</strong>y are unable to attend meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs<br />
on a regular basis. 16<br />
<strong>The</strong> Joint Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs’ mandate was to concern itself both with<br />
policy and legislation to ensure that EU affairs are examined by <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Parliament<br />
as a whole. 17 <strong>The</strong> new Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs has played a significant role<br />
in informing deputies and senators <strong>of</strong> general EU policy developments but scrutiny <strong>of</strong><br />
EU legislation suffered as a result. <strong>The</strong> new committee benefited from a large<br />
number <strong>of</strong> oral presentations from academic experts, ambassadors and EU and NATO<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials, as well as briefing documents from <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs.<br />
Ministers have also been willing to appear before <strong>the</strong> committee. However,<br />
attendance at <strong>the</strong> committees was patchy, given <strong>the</strong> constituency duties <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
parliamentarians and <strong>the</strong>re was some overlap between <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an and Foreign<br />
Affairs committees on areas such as <strong>the</strong> Common Defence and Security Policy.<br />
In addition to <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs’ examination <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
developments, <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach makes a statement to <strong>the</strong> Dáil after each <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Council. <strong>The</strong> Government also produces a twice-yearly report entitled Developments<br />
in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities which is laid before <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas. <strong>The</strong> reports are<br />
usually late and debated infrequently by <strong>the</strong> Houses <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas, thus limiting<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir effectiveness as a means <strong>of</strong> control over <strong>the</strong> Executive’s EU policy. 18<br />
Parliamentary questions, although used infrequently, are ano<strong>the</strong>r scrutiny device<br />
available to parliamentarians. Relations between <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas and <strong>the</strong> EU have<br />
been characterised as a combination <strong>of</strong> neglect and ignorance (O’Halpin, 1996, 124).<br />
<strong>The</strong> new Joint Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs <strong>of</strong> 1993 helped increase parliamentary<br />
16 Houses <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas, Second Report <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Affairs 1995 Annual Report, July 1996.<br />
17 <strong>The</strong> Joint Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs has 19 members: 14 TDs and 5<br />
Senators.<br />
18 In general, <strong>the</strong>se reports have been debated more frequently in <strong>the</strong> Seanad and in<br />
a more systematic fashion.
awareness <strong>of</strong> developments in <strong>the</strong> EU but it concentrated, on <strong>the</strong> whole, on<br />
discussing topical issues instead <strong>of</strong> monitoring <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> EU legislation. At a time<br />
when <strong>the</strong> EU expanded its remit to cover most areas <strong>of</strong> member states’ governance,<br />
parliamentary scrutiny <strong>of</strong> EU legislation in Ireland and <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s <strong>Europe</strong>an policy<br />
was weak.<br />
SECTION II - STRUCTURES<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Administrative System and <strong>the</strong> EU 19<br />
Given <strong>the</strong> reach <strong>of</strong> EU policies on national policy making, every department and<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive system is required to deal with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union<br />
in some way. <strong>The</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> interaction and need to manage EU business depends<br />
primarily on <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation found in <strong>the</strong> respective policy domains <strong>of</strong><br />
each <strong>of</strong>fice and department. It is possible to place <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive system’s<br />
management <strong>of</strong> EU business on three distinct levels based on this criterion:<br />
19 <strong>The</strong> material that forms <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following analysis was ga<strong>the</strong>red from<br />
detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> documentary evidence (including strategy statements from<br />
government departments) and two extensive series <strong>of</strong> structured interviews with<br />
those involved in managing Ireland’s EU affairs. <strong>The</strong> first round <strong>of</strong> interviews (47 in<br />
total) was conducted by Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Brigid Laffan as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research carried out<br />
between 1999 and 2000 for Organising for a Changing <strong>Europe</strong>: <strong>Irish</strong> Central<br />
Government and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union, published in 2001. <strong>The</strong> second round <strong>of</strong><br />
interviews was conducted in <strong>the</strong> first half <strong>of</strong> 2002. 30 structured interviews were<br />
conducted and interviewees for this stage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project included civil servants drawn<br />
from most departments throughout <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system, and included representatives<br />
from <strong>the</strong> political and parliamentary arenas.
Figure 2: Levels <strong>of</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU business:<br />
Cabinet<br />
Taoiseach<br />
DFA<br />
Finance<br />
ET&E<br />
Agriculture<br />
Justice Environment<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> Attorney General<br />
Tourism<br />
Arts, Heritage & Gaeltacht Defence<br />
Education & Science<br />
Health & Children<br />
Marine & Natural Resources Public Enterprise<br />
Social, Community & Family Affairs<br />
<strong>The</strong> salience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU in <strong>the</strong> particular policy area determines <strong>the</strong> response <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
individual departments in setting up structures to deal with <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> EU business.<br />
Looking at <strong>the</strong> diagram above, we see that three over-arching ministries –<br />
Taoiseach, Foreign Affairs and Finance - deal with <strong>the</strong> overall coordination <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> EU<br />
policy and are <strong>the</strong> central structural nodes through which Ireland’s overall EU<br />
strategy must pass through at varying stages. At <strong>the</strong> second level, EU policies are<br />
central or increasingly central to <strong>the</strong> work undertaken by <strong>the</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong><br />
Agriculture, Justice, Enterprise, Trade & Employment and <strong>the</strong> Environment. While<br />
<strong>the</strong> volume <strong>of</strong> EU legislation to be transmuted into domestic law has not increased<br />
significantly in recent years, <strong>the</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attorney General is included in this<br />
level. For example, as EU competence has grown in <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> Justice and <strong>Home</strong><br />
Affairs (referred to by one interviewee for this study as a growth industry), this has<br />
necessitated more hands-on involvement by this <strong>of</strong>fice in <strong>the</strong> formulation,<br />
coordination and monitoring <strong>of</strong> legislation dealing with this area. For <strong>the</strong><br />
departments at <strong>the</strong> third level <strong>of</strong> core-executive management (until <strong>the</strong><br />
reconfiguration <strong>of</strong> departments in June 2002), i.e. Arts, Heritage and <strong>the</strong> Gaeltacht,<br />
Defence, Health and Children, Education and Science, Marine and Natural Resources,
Public Enterprise, Social, Community and Family Affairs and Tourism, coordinating<br />
and managing national policy remains <strong>the</strong> over-arching concern. However, each <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se departments to varying degrees found itself dealing with a certain amount <strong>of</strong><br />
EU business, in particular as <strong>the</strong> new mode <strong>of</strong> governance, <strong>the</strong> Open Method <strong>of</strong><br />
Coordination, is becoming more prevalent in <strong>the</strong> EU. Two useful indicators <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an demands on domestic ministries is <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Council meetings each<br />
department must service and <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> working parties each department must<br />
service (See Tables 1 and 2). <strong>The</strong>se indicators highlight <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>Europe</strong>anisation<br />
is unevenly spread in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. <strong>The</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, Finance,<br />
Agriculture, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Justice and Environment are most<br />
heavily involved in <strong>the</strong> EU system.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following section will explore <strong>the</strong> multiple structures put in place within and<br />
between government departments in order to manage relations with Brussels. Each<br />
Department is structured on a functional basis with specific or numerous units within<br />
Departments that deal with <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> EU business alongside national business.<br />
Departments have also put in place specific EU coordination structures to coordinate<br />
EU business on an intra and inter-departmental basis. Interdepartmental structures<br />
are also to be found in order to manage cross-cutting or horizontal issues <strong>of</strong> a wideranging<br />
nature. <strong>The</strong> first component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> core-core <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong>-EU interface<br />
whose structures we will examine is <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister’s <strong>of</strong>fice, also known as <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach.
Table 1: Ministerial involvement in <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers<br />
Council<br />
General Affairs<br />
Council<br />
Economic and<br />
Finance<br />
Agriculture<br />
Environment<br />
Justice, <strong>Home</strong><br />
Affairs and Civil<br />
Protection<br />
Internal<br />
Market/Consumer<br />
Affairs/Tourism<br />
Transport/Telecom<br />
munications<br />
Employment and<br />
Social Policy<br />
Culture<br />
Fisheries<br />
Education/Youth<br />
Research<br />
Industry/Energy<br />
<strong>Irish</strong><br />
Minister/Depart<br />
ment<br />
Council Meetings<br />
in 2001<br />
Percentage<br />
Foreign Affairs 15 17<br />
Finance 11 13<br />
Agriculture, Food<br />
and Forestry<br />
Environment and<br />
Local Government<br />
Justice, Equality<br />
and Law Reform<br />
Enterprise, Trade<br />
and Employment<br />
10 11<br />
8 9<br />
8 9<br />
5 6<br />
Public Enterprise 5 6<br />
Enterprise, Trade<br />
and Employment;<br />
Social, Community<br />
and Family Affairs<br />
Arts, Culture and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Gaeltacht<br />
Marine and Natural<br />
Resources<br />
Education and<br />
Science<br />
Enterprise, Trade<br />
and Employment<br />
Enterprise, Trade<br />
4 5<br />
4 5<br />
4 5<br />
3 4<br />
2 2<br />
2 2<br />
and Employment<br />
Health Health 2 2<br />
Development Foreign Affairs 2 2<br />
Budget Finance 2 2
Table 2: Council Working Parties to be serviced, June 2002<br />
Council<br />
<strong>Irish</strong><br />
Minister/Department<br />
No. <strong>of</strong><br />
Working<br />
Parties<br />
General Affairs (horizontal Foreign Affairs 56 32<br />
issues and external<br />
relations)<br />
Economic and Finance Finance 8 5<br />
Agriculture<br />
Agriculture, Food and 37 21<br />
Forestry<br />
Environment<br />
Environment and Local 2 1<br />
Government<br />
Justice, <strong>Home</strong> Affairs and Justice, Equality and 26 15<br />
Civil Protection<br />
Law Reform<br />
Internal Market<br />
Enterprise, Trade and 13 7<br />
Employment<br />
Transport/Telecommunicati Public Enterprise 6 3.5<br />
ons<br />
Employment and Social<br />
Policy<br />
Education, Culture and<br />
Youth<br />
Fisheries<br />
Research<br />
Industry/Energy<br />
Health and Consumer<br />
Affairs<br />
Enterprise, Trade and<br />
Employment; Social,<br />
Community and Family<br />
Affairs<br />
Education and Science,<br />
Arts, Culture and <strong>the</strong><br />
Gaeltacht<br />
Marine and Natural<br />
Resources<br />
Enterprise, Trade and<br />
Employment<br />
Enterprise, Trade and<br />
Employment, Public<br />
Enterprise<br />
2 1<br />
4 2<br />
3 2<br />
3 2<br />
6 3.5<br />
Health and ET&E 2 1<br />
Development Foreign Affairs 3 2<br />
Budget Finance 3 2<br />
Total: 174 100<br />
Percentage<br />
%<br />
Source: Europa website. It is important to note that <strong>the</strong>se figures are approximate<br />
since it is impossible to accurately determine <strong>the</strong> exact number <strong>of</strong> working parties in<br />
existence in <strong>the</strong> EU at any one time.
VERTICAL STRUCTURES – THE CORE-CORE<br />
Taoiseach’s Department<br />
<strong>The</strong> Taoiseach’s Department, while small in size compared to o<strong>the</strong>r government<br />
departments, is central to <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> EU business as it serves as <strong>the</strong> secretariat<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Prime Minister or Taoiseach, who, as Section I shows, holds a position <strong>of</strong><br />
considerable power in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive system. <strong>The</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s<br />
Department in <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> EU business has been considerably enhanced in recent<br />
years to <strong>the</strong> extent that it is considered as one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two ‘EU coordinating<br />
departments’ (Interview 62, 26.03.02). <strong>The</strong> direct involvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach in<br />
EU business, as with every o<strong>the</strong>r head <strong>of</strong> Government in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union, was<br />
enhanced by <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Council in 1975 and in particular<br />
after <strong>the</strong> negotiation and signature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Single <strong>Europe</strong>an Act in 1986 when it was<br />
recognised as an independent <strong>Europe</strong>an Community institution. Indeed, this<br />
concomitantly streng<strong>the</strong>ned <strong>the</strong> position <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core<br />
executive system as <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach became equally involved than <strong>the</strong> Minister for<br />
Foreign Affairs in <strong>the</strong> overall determination <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s strategy towards <strong>the</strong> EC/EU.<br />
<strong>The</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> treaty reform since <strong>the</strong> SEA in 1986 and <strong>the</strong> more recent instigation<br />
and development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lisbon Agenda since 2000 (with an overall coordinating role<br />
required <strong>of</strong> prime ministers within this new mode <strong>of</strong> governance) has fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
increased <strong>the</strong> involvement <strong>of</strong> prime ministers in EU policy making and <strong>the</strong> need for<br />
individual prime ministers to be fully briefed on a very broad range <strong>of</strong> EU policy<br />
issues. <strong>The</strong> Prime Minister plays a leading role during EU Presidencies in particular<br />
as chair <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Council summits. Prime ministers engage in continuous<br />
bilateral meetings with o<strong>the</strong>r heads <strong>of</strong> government and ministers <strong>of</strong> EU member<br />
states and candidate countries on a continuous basis.<br />
While primary responsibility for <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s <strong>Europe</strong>an policy on<br />
specific issues rests with individual Departments, <strong>the</strong> core role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Taoiseach is to provide a strategic direction and focus for this <strong>Europe</strong>an policy in<br />
overall terms. <strong>The</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> those in <strong>the</strong> Department is to work in tandem with <strong>the</strong><br />
relevant line departments ra<strong>the</strong>r than duplicate <strong>the</strong> work that is already being done.<br />
<strong>The</strong> relatively small size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach necessitates this<br />
approach. <strong>The</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s <strong>of</strong>fice has increased from having a staff <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately 20 in <strong>the</strong> early 1960s to over 200 civil servants and political advisors
in 2002 (Interview 48, 12.02.02). In spite <strong>of</strong> this significant increase in staffing as a<br />
whole, <strong>the</strong> infrastructure established to deal directly with EU matters within <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach was and continues to be small in scale (Interview 48,<br />
l2.02.02).<br />
In 1982, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>n Taoiseach Charles Haughey established an International Affairs<br />
Division to deal with Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland and <strong>the</strong> EU. This division was expanded to<br />
include all international and EU matters. In 1999 its staff numbered five, including<br />
<strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> unit. Following a reorganisation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department in July 2001 (see<br />
figure 3), a position <strong>of</strong> Second Secretary was established with overall responsibility<br />
for Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland and EU and International Affairs. This is a significant<br />
development as it marked recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need for steering in <strong>the</strong>se specific policy<br />
areas at <strong>the</strong> highest level in <strong>the</strong> Department. <strong>The</strong> EU and International Affairs<br />
Division’s staff now includes one head <strong>of</strong> unit (Assistant Secretary) along with two<br />
principal <strong>of</strong>ficers, two assistant principals and two administrative <strong>of</strong>ficers (total <strong>of</strong><br />
seven, however three <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se staff deal mainly with international affairs as opposed<br />
to <strong>Europe</strong>an matters). 20 <strong>The</strong> department does not have any staff in <strong>the</strong> Permanent<br />
Representation in Brussels. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an and International Affairs Division supports<br />
<strong>the</strong> Taoiseach in his role as <strong>the</strong> Head <strong>of</strong> Government <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Europe</strong>an Union member<br />
state and in <strong>the</strong> wider field <strong>of</strong> international relations. <strong>The</strong> division co-ordinates and<br />
contributes to <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s policies on issues <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an and<br />
international concern. In conjunction with o<strong>the</strong>r government departments, <strong>the</strong><br />
division monitors emerging <strong>Europe</strong>an policy positions and <strong>the</strong> policy approaches from<br />
<strong>the</strong> various government departments and o<strong>the</strong>r state bodies. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> division’s<br />
primary functions is to ensure that <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach is fully briefed on key<br />
developments at <strong>Europe</strong>an and International level and that Ireland’s interests are<br />
actively pursued. <strong>The</strong>se briefings are received from all departments, in particular <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, and collated by <strong>the</strong> division. <strong>The</strong> division also<br />
services a number <strong>of</strong> interdepartmental committees such as <strong>the</strong> Interdepartmental<br />
Coordinating Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Union Affairs (informally known as <strong>the</strong> Roche<br />
Committee as it is chaired by Minister <strong>of</strong> State for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs, Dick Roche). Its<br />
immediate precursor was <strong>the</strong> Senior Officials Group (which was chaired by <strong>the</strong><br />
Assistant Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU and International Division). O<strong>the</strong>r interdepartmental<br />
20 In 2002 a Lisbon Agenda Unit was also established with three staff: a Principal<br />
Officer, Assistant Principal and Administrative Officer.
committees serviced by <strong>the</strong> Unit include <strong>the</strong> Lisbon Group and <strong>the</strong> Convention<br />
Overview Group. <strong>The</strong> Unit also services <strong>the</strong> Cabinet Sub-Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Affairs. <strong>The</strong> division coordinates <strong>the</strong> logistical arrangements for <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s diary<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an and international engagements, including engagements held in Ireland<br />
with visiting Heads <strong>of</strong> Government. 21<br />
<strong>The</strong> rhythm <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Council meetings serves as an organizing pole for work<br />
carried out in <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s Department and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an and International Affairs<br />
Division’s engagement with successive Taoisigh is dictated by events. Engagements<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach relating to EU matters, <strong>the</strong>refore, may or may not occur on a<br />
daily basis. As a rule, <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach is accompanied to <strong>Europe</strong>an Council Summits<br />
by senior ministers and civil servants, including <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representative in <strong>the</strong><br />
Brussels Representation centre (though not necessarily Secretaries General <strong>of</strong><br />
national departments). Along with <strong>of</strong>ficials and relevant ministers (including a<br />
Minister for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs if appointed in <strong>the</strong> life <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Parliament), a Senior<br />
Political Advisor would generally accompany <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach to summits to be on hand<br />
in case political firefighting must be countered.<br />
In summary, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Toaiseach has expanded in relation to<br />
<strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU business since <strong>the</strong> 1980s for a number <strong>of</strong> reasons. First, <strong>the</strong><br />
intensification <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Council has internationalised <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> all <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Prime Ministers. Formal Council meetings and bilaterals with counterparts is intrinsic<br />
to contemporary governance. Second, as EU’s policy remit expanded from <strong>the</strong> Single<br />
Act onwards, <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s Department became more involved in managing <strong>the</strong><br />
determination <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> interests and <strong>the</strong> projection <strong>of</strong> interests into <strong>the</strong> EU system. In<br />
<strong>the</strong> post-Nice period, <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach faces an important domestic challenge <strong>of</strong><br />
communicating <strong>Europe</strong>. <strong>The</strong> core role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> department in relation to EU business<br />
was described by one <strong>of</strong> its <strong>of</strong>ficials in <strong>the</strong> following terms:<br />
<strong>The</strong> core role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> An Taoiseach is to provide a strategic<br />
direction on <strong>Europe</strong>, to create a strategic focus (Interview 48, 12.02.02).<br />
In addition, <strong>the</strong> department can be brought into any set <strong>of</strong> negotiations if <strong>the</strong>y<br />
become problematic or in <strong>the</strong> event <strong>of</strong> deep-rooted interdepartmental conflict. <strong>The</strong><br />
way in which <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s Department exercises its role is determined by its<br />
21 Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach, Strategy Statement to 31 December 2003.
staffing levels which remain relatively thin and by its desire to ‘work in tandem<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than reinvent’ <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r departments (Interview 51, 12.02.02) <strong>The</strong><br />
tendency is ‘to delegate and to co-ordinate as required and not to micro-manage’<br />
(Interview 49, 12 February 2002).
Political<br />
Advisors<br />
Taoiseach<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State for <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Affairs<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Council<br />
Secretary General<br />
Second Secretary<br />
Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary<br />
Assistant Secretary<br />
Protocol<br />
Government<br />
Secretariat<br />
Information<br />
Society Policy<br />
Division<br />
Economic Policy<br />
Division<br />
Social Policy<br />
Division<br />
Public Service<br />
Modernisation<br />
Programme<br />
Social<br />
Partnership<br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Ireland Division<br />
National<br />
Forum on<br />
<strong>Europe</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an and<br />
International<br />
Affairs Division<br />
Private Office<br />
Government<br />
Press Office<br />
Figure 3:<br />
Structure <strong>of</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach 2002
Foreign Affairs<br />
<strong>The</strong> EU poses a particular challenge to national foreign ministries because it is an<br />
arena that involves a complex blend <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> diplomatic and domestic/sectoral, or <strong>the</strong><br />
political and technical. Adequate representation in <strong>the</strong> EU requires that national<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials and ministers manage <strong>the</strong> interface between <strong>the</strong> diplomatic and <strong>the</strong> sectoral<br />
so that policy is not driven by <strong>the</strong> technical preferences <strong>of</strong> line ministries on <strong>the</strong> one<br />
hand, or <strong>the</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> inter-state diplomacy on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. As outlined above, <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs assumed <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> lead department on EU matters<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance in 1973. Its place at <strong>the</strong> heart <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> core-core <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive is still taken as given, however it now shares its coordinating<br />
responsibilities to a greater degree with <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach.<br />
According to <strong>the</strong> DFA Strategy Statement for 2001-2003, ‘<strong>the</strong> DFA, working with<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r Departments, has a particular responsibility to ensure a co-ordinated response<br />
across a wide range <strong>of</strong> EU issues’ (Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, 2001, 15). <strong>The</strong><br />
importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU to <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DFA is also reflected in its 2001-2003<br />
mission statement which, for <strong>the</strong> first time, refers to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union as an area<br />
<strong>of</strong> strategic importance for Ireland’s interests:<br />
<strong>The</strong> mission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs is to promote <strong>the</strong> interests<br />
<strong>of</strong> Ireland in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union and in <strong>the</strong> wider world, to protect its citizens<br />
abroad, and to pursue peace, partnership and reconciliation on <strong>the</strong> island <strong>of</strong><br />
Ireland’ (Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, 2001, 9).<br />
Membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU in 1973 had a major impact on <strong>the</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs and was instrumental in promoting <strong>the</strong> modernization<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Foreign Service (Keatinge 1995: 2). It involved a broadening <strong>of</strong><br />
interests, and placed Ireland within a demanding multinational diplomatic<br />
environment which demanded new institutional mechanisms, processes and<br />
resources. <strong>The</strong> department became involved in <strong>the</strong> Union’s governance structures<br />
and, given its co-ordinating role on EU matters, and as a consequence became more<br />
integrated with <strong>the</strong> domestic system <strong>of</strong> public administration. <strong>The</strong> department’s<br />
modernization was characterized by an increase in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> staff in head <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
and in <strong>Irish</strong> missions abroad (See table 4). Increased resources were accompanied<br />
by internal organisational changes with <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> new divisions, <strong>the</strong><br />
reorganisation <strong>of</strong> existing ones and increased functional specialization at head <strong>of</strong>fice.
Those changes were a response to membership, <strong>the</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> managing a<br />
presidency and <strong>the</strong> widening scope and reach <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> foreign policy.<br />
Table 4: Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs Staffing<br />
Year Total Number in DFA Total Number in<br />
Economic/EU<br />
Division<br />
1967 40 6<br />
1971 51 11<br />
1974 87 31<br />
1979 114 27<br />
1982 130 30<br />
1986 136 29<br />
1988 125 24<br />
1992 123 15<br />
1995 126 19<br />
2000 175 19<br />
Source: State Directories, 1967-2000.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> late 1980s, Foreign Affairs, like all government departments, suffered a<br />
reduction in staff during <strong>the</strong> public sector recruitment embargo. This reduction took<br />
place at a time when Ireland was confronted with many challenging developments on<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an and international stage, for example <strong>the</strong> collapse <strong>of</strong> communism in<br />
Central and Eastern <strong>Europe</strong> and <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cold War. <strong>The</strong> ongoing negotiation <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> peace process in Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland has placed a heavy burden on <strong>the</strong> Anglo <strong>Irish</strong><br />
division within <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs and membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UN Security<br />
Council from 2001-2003 imposed fur<strong>the</strong>r demands on <strong>the</strong> Department. Yet<br />
notwithstanding <strong>the</strong>se multiple demands, until <strong>the</strong> late 1990s <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Foreign<br />
Service remained small relative to <strong>the</strong> EU’s o<strong>the</strong>r small member states. In 1999,<br />
countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Greece and Portugal had twice as many<br />
embassies and twice as many diplomatic staff as Ireland. However, in tandem with<br />
an internal review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department’s functioning, concerted efforts have also been<br />
made to increase both <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> diplomatic service abroad and<br />
headquarters in Dublin.<br />
Concern about <strong>the</strong> capacity <strong>of</strong> headquarters to direct <strong>the</strong> growing diplomatic network<br />
and to respond to <strong>the</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> strategic policy making led to a major internal
eview <strong>of</strong> its resources and organisational structure in 1999-2000. 22 An original idea,<br />
held to be impracticable was <strong>the</strong> instigation <strong>of</strong> a Geographic desk arrangement where<br />
each region <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world would have its own ‘desk’ or responsible division. <strong>The</strong> chef<br />
de file or lead unit arrangement was put in place in February 2002 where each unit<br />
within <strong>the</strong> Department has overall responsibility for particular regions or countries <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> world. Staff numbers have also been gradually increased since <strong>the</strong> period <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
review (Interview 60, 26.03.02).<br />
<strong>The</strong> DFA plays a specific and more hands-on role in <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> relations<br />
with Brussels that differs from <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach. Within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
system, <strong>the</strong> DFA is <strong>the</strong> department with an overview <strong>of</strong> developments in <strong>the</strong> EU from<br />
an institutional and political perspective. In addition, its embassies in <strong>the</strong> member<br />
states can provide information and briefing on <strong>the</strong> policy positions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> member<br />
states, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> ‘eyes and ears’. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Representation in Brussels is a pivotal<br />
source <strong>of</strong> intelligence on developments in <strong>the</strong> EU and has a key function in<br />
identifying how and what national preferences can be promoted within <strong>the</strong> EU and in<br />
identifying <strong>the</strong> trade-<strong>of</strong>fs that might be necessary as negotiations develop. <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation is examined later in this section.<br />
Following <strong>the</strong> review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department, its structure was streamlined to take into<br />
account <strong>the</strong> ever-changing exigencies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> international system and <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s<br />
place within this system. <strong>The</strong> Department is currently organised into ten separate<br />
divisions (See figures 4 and 5). Each division is <strong>the</strong>n organised into discrete<br />
numbers <strong>of</strong> units. <strong>The</strong> divisions are as follows: Anglo-<strong>Irish</strong> deals with Anglo-<strong>Irish</strong><br />
relations and Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland. <strong>The</strong> EU Division coordinates Ireland's approach<br />
within <strong>the</strong> EU. <strong>The</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union Division is now referred to as<br />
Director General. <strong>The</strong> Political Division is responsible for international political issues<br />
and manages Ireland's participation in <strong>the</strong> EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy.<br />
<strong>The</strong> head <strong>of</strong> Political Division is referred to as <strong>the</strong> Political Director. <strong>The</strong><br />
Development Co-operation Division is responsible for <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
overseas aid programme and for <strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> development policy. <strong>The</strong><br />
Corporate Services Division is responsible for <strong>the</strong> day-to-day management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
22 <strong>The</strong> review in Foreign Affairs was very extensive, and involved an analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
internal organization in headquarters and <strong>the</strong> department’s external links to o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
government departments and to <strong>the</strong> growing network <strong>of</strong> embassies. <strong>The</strong> review<br />
focused on increased resources and structural change.
Department. <strong>The</strong> Consular Division is responsible for <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> Consular<br />
services <strong>of</strong>fered to <strong>Irish</strong> citizens. <strong>The</strong> Protocol and Cultural Division is responsible for<br />
<strong>the</strong> organisation and management <strong>of</strong> visits <strong>of</strong> VIPs to Ireland and <strong>of</strong> visits abroad by<br />
<strong>the</strong> President, as well as <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> Ireland's obligations under <strong>the</strong> Vienna<br />
Convention. This Division also administers <strong>the</strong> Cultural relations programme <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs. <strong>The</strong> Bilateral Economic Relations Division deals with<br />
Ireland's Bilateral Economic Relations with countries throughout <strong>the</strong> world. Finally,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Legal Division provides <strong>the</strong> Department with legal advice and which has<br />
responsibilities in <strong>the</strong> negotiation <strong>of</strong> international agreements.<br />
Within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system, <strong>the</strong> DFA has lead responsibility for a number <strong>of</strong> important<br />
policy issues such as <strong>the</strong> Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), development co-operation, institutional<br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Union, <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> presidency and enlargement. <strong>The</strong><br />
divisions within <strong>the</strong> DFA most involved in EU business are <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union<br />
Division and <strong>the</strong> Political Division and each division has responsibility for different EU<br />
policy areas. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union Division and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Representation in Brussels<br />
form two central nodes in <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU business, particularly in relation to<br />
pillar I as <strong>the</strong>y interact with a) EU institutions, particularly <strong>the</strong> Council but also <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission and <strong>the</strong> Parliament, b) government departments both individually and<br />
collectively. <strong>The</strong> EU Division (formerly known as <strong>the</strong> Economic Division and for a<br />
time <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities Division) coordinates Ireland’s approach within <strong>the</strong><br />
EU to issues such as institutional issues and enlargement. <strong>The</strong> EU Division has <strong>the</strong><br />
overall coordination function in relation to first pillar business in general including <strong>the</strong><br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> briefs for <strong>the</strong> General Affairs Council (GAC), <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Council and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Presidency. <strong>The</strong> GAC is <strong>the</strong> main coordinator <strong>of</strong> Council business and is <strong>the</strong> main<br />
channel <strong>of</strong> material to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Council, apart from issues relating to <strong>the</strong> Euro<br />
and competitiveness. <strong>The</strong> direct link between <strong>the</strong> GAC and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Council<br />
demands a close working relationship between Foreign Affairs and <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s<br />
department. <strong>The</strong> Council phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Union’s policy process imposes heavy<br />
demands on <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs as a whole and its role in monitoring<br />
and assessing developments in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Parliament is less developed. <strong>The</strong> core<br />
<strong>of</strong> its involvement is in <strong>the</strong> negotiating phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policy process, ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
implementation, which is mainly <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> domestic departments.
Within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union Division, <strong>the</strong> EU Coordination Unit is responsible for<br />
coordinating <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> ministerial briefs for <strong>the</strong> General Affairs Council, for<br />
supplying briefing material for <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach for <strong>Europe</strong>an Council meetings and is<br />
<strong>the</strong> formal pathway for <strong>the</strong> circulation <strong>of</strong> much EU material to <strong>the</strong> domestic<br />
departments and to units within <strong>the</strong> DFA itself. With <strong>the</strong> new parliamentary scrutiny<br />
measures established in mid-2002, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> this Unit in ensuring adequate flows <strong>of</strong><br />
information and documents throughout <strong>the</strong> core executive system will increase even<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r. It is self-evident that all sections or units within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union<br />
Division deal primarily with EU matters, i.e. <strong>the</strong> internal EU policies section, external<br />
economic relations section (working closely with Enterprise, Trade and Employment),<br />
institutional EU development section and enlargement section.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Political Division is responsible for Ireland’s approach to <strong>the</strong> CFSP, and has<br />
coordinating function with regard to <strong>the</strong> ESDP (and works closely on this with <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Defence). <strong>The</strong> head <strong>of</strong> division is Ireland’s political director, who, in<br />
<strong>the</strong> past was responsible for attending meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Political Committee, <strong>the</strong> highranking<br />
committee for dealing with <strong>the</strong> international role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Union. Upon <strong>the</strong><br />
creation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Political and Security Committee (institutionalised in <strong>the</strong> Treaty <strong>of</strong><br />
Nice), <strong>the</strong> Political Division posted a senior representative at ambassadorial level to<br />
sit on this committee. This brings to three <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> diplomats in Ireland’s<br />
Permanent Representation with ambassadorial rank.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Political Division services all committees that meet under <strong>the</strong> auspices <strong>of</strong> pillar<br />
two. <strong>The</strong> Political Division works closely with <strong>the</strong> Department’s <strong>Europe</strong>an Union<br />
division (although <strong>the</strong>y are housed in separate buildings at present), particularly in<br />
relation to issues such as enlargement. Given <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> its responsibilities it has<br />
weaker links to <strong>the</strong> domestic departments than <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union Division. <strong>The</strong><br />
most important interaction it has is with <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Defence, on <strong>the</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s position in <strong>Europe</strong>’s changing security environment.<br />
Officials from <strong>the</strong> International Security Policy Unit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Division work in close cooperation<br />
with <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong> International Security and Defence Policy Branch <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs. Within <strong>the</strong> DFA’s Political Division, <strong>the</strong><br />
International Security Policy section has moved from primarily servicing meetings in<br />
Brussels to helping man <strong>the</strong> Brussels delegation, which has also been increased in<br />
size (apart from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> representative on <strong>the</strong> Political and Security Division, two
o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong>ficials work in <strong>the</strong> ESDP unit in close cooperation with <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Defence and Army representatives (who service <strong>the</strong> Military<br />
Committee <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ESDP)). Officials from <strong>the</strong> International Security Policy Unit also<br />
service domestic interdepartmental and institutional working groups such as <strong>the</strong> Ad<br />
Hoc group <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DFA, Defence and <strong>the</strong> Army that deals with PfP and ESDP issues,<br />
CIVCOM and <strong>the</strong> Rule <strong>of</strong> Law Working Group. <strong>The</strong>re is also an interdepartmental<br />
committee on Peacekeeping, which meets three to four times a year. This<br />
committee is chaired by <strong>the</strong> Political Director and its aim is to bring toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
interested parties from within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system, such as army directors, Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Justice and <strong>the</strong> Gardai. <strong>The</strong> International Security Policy section also works<br />
closely with Defence by means <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dedicated encryption line which links <strong>the</strong> two<br />
departments and <strong>the</strong> PSC delegation. <strong>The</strong> Development division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs deals with work for <strong>the</strong> EU Development Council.
Figure 4:<br />
Structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Foreign Affairs 2002<br />
Minister for Foreign<br />
Affairs<br />
EU General<br />
Affairs Council<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State<br />
Secretary General<br />
Deputy<br />
Secretary<br />
EU Permanent<br />
Representation<br />
- Coreper<br />
EU Political<br />
and<br />
Security<br />
Committe<br />
Second<br />
Secretary<br />
Inspection<br />
Assistant<br />
Secretary<br />
Assistant<br />
Secretary<br />
Assistant<br />
Secretary<br />
Assistant<br />
Secretar<br />
Director<br />
General<br />
Legal<br />
Advisor<br />
Political<br />
Director<br />
Assistant<br />
Secretary<br />
Bilateral<br />
Economic<br />
Relations<br />
Consular<br />
Services<br />
Corporat<br />
e<br />
Services<br />
Development<br />
Cooperation<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Union<br />
Legal<br />
Political<br />
Protocol<br />
and<br />
Cultural<br />
Anglo<br />
<strong>Irish</strong>
Figure 5:<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs Structure Detail<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Union Division<br />
Political Division<br />
Director General<br />
Political<br />
Director<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Union<br />
Division<br />
Political<br />
Division<br />
EU Co-ordination<br />
Common Foreign<br />
and Security Policy<br />
Internal EU<br />
Policies<br />
Bilateral Political<br />
Relations<br />
External<br />
Economic<br />
United Nations<br />
Institutional EU<br />
Development<br />
OSCE<br />
Enlargement<br />
Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong><br />
International<br />
Security Policy<br />
Human Rights
Finance<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance played a crucial role in <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an policy and in <strong>the</strong> negotiation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> accession to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Economic<br />
Community in 1973. Its role remained important after accession although Foreign<br />
Affairs was given <strong>the</strong> co-ordinating brief for EU business. In 1972 <strong>the</strong> department<br />
had one section that dealt with all EU matters. However, EU policies began to<br />
permeate too many areas <strong>of</strong> domestic policy for that position to persist. <strong>The</strong><br />
department’s role in EU business increased significantly from <strong>the</strong> mid-1980s with <strong>the</strong><br />
single market programme, EU structural and cohesion funds, taxation and Economic<br />
and Monetary Union (EMU) to <strong>the</strong> extent that <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance could now<br />
be said to have an interest in everything <strong>Europe</strong>an for its role as <strong>the</strong> controller <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
public finances gives it a central role in EU affairs. It is <strong>the</strong> standard practice that EU<br />
proposals with financial implications for <strong>the</strong> Exchequer must be cleared with <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Finance before being approved. <strong>From</strong> <strong>the</strong> perspective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Finance, in <strong>the</strong> 1980s and 1990s, <strong>the</strong> EU was a welcome source <strong>of</strong><br />
funds. It also helped establish a policy environment in relation to budgetary<br />
expenditure, state aids, and taxation that contributed to Ireland’s improved<br />
economic performance. Participation in <strong>the</strong> Community Support Framework in<br />
particular helped instil an evaluation culture within <strong>the</strong> Department. <strong>The</strong> policy<br />
formulation methodology <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Plans continues to be used in domestic<br />
policy formulation and co-ordination.<br />
Participation in <strong>the</strong> EU is cited in <strong>the</strong> Department’s Strategy Statement as its third<br />
strategic priority (one <strong>of</strong> five) with specific objectives in relation to six areas <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
business:<br />
♦ Contribution to <strong>the</strong> formulation <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s EU policy<br />
♦ Effective representation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> position at <strong>the</strong> ECOFIN and Budget<br />
Councils<br />
♦ Effective administration <strong>of</strong> EU Structural and Cohesion Fund receipts<br />
♦ Optimum benefits from EU/EMU membership<br />
♦ A successful changeover to <strong>the</strong> Euro<br />
♦ A competitive financial services sector (Department <strong>of</strong> Finance, 2001, 5).<br />
<strong>The</strong> department interacts with <strong>the</strong> EU arena via <strong>the</strong> ECOFIN Council, its preparatory<br />
bodies, <strong>the</strong> Economic and Finance Committee (formerly <strong>the</strong> Monetary Committee),<br />
<strong>the</strong> Economic Policy Committee, <strong>the</strong> Eurogroup (12 member states), <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an
Central Bank, <strong>the</strong> Budget Council, o<strong>the</strong>r Council working parties dealing in particular<br />
with financial regulation, COREPER and bilateral dealings with <strong>the</strong> Commission.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is an ECOFIN Council every month and a Budget Council at least twice a year.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se meetings include evaluations <strong>of</strong> national economic policy and performance<br />
within <strong>the</strong> Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and Stability Pact policy mechanisms.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department also has extensive bilateral contact with <strong>the</strong> Commission through its<br />
central role in <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Community Support Framework in Ireland.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department plays a major role in negotiations on taxation, where <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs’ involvement was minimal.<br />
<strong>The</strong> two Divisions centrally involved in EU business are <strong>the</strong> Budget and Economic<br />
Division (BED) and <strong>the</strong> Banking, Finance and International Services Division (BFID)<br />
(see figure 6). <strong>The</strong> BED deals with overall budgetary policy, economic policy and<br />
forecasting, <strong>the</strong> International Financial Services Centre and servicing EU committees<br />
on tax policy and budgetary and economic co-operation under EMU. BFID deals with<br />
banking policy and financial regulation at domestic and EU level, <strong>the</strong> Euro<br />
changeover and EU exchange rate policy. This division also handles monitoring and<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Development Plan and Community Support Framework,<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Regional Development and Cohesion Funds, regional policy, debt<br />
management policy, <strong>the</strong> EU budget and o<strong>the</strong>r international financial institutions.<br />
Within <strong>the</strong> Department, sections have autonomy and responsibility for policy in<br />
respect <strong>of</strong> issues under <strong>the</strong>ir aegis and pull toge<strong>the</strong>r when going to ECOFIN.
Figure 6:<br />
Structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Finance 2002<br />
Ec<strong>of</strong>in<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Finance<br />
Economic and<br />
Finance Committee<br />
(and Alternates)<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State<br />
Economic Policy<br />
Committee<br />
Secretary General<br />
Budget and<br />
Economic<br />
Division<br />
Banking,<br />
Finance &<br />
International<br />
Services<br />
Public<br />
Expenditure<br />
Personnel and<br />
Remuneration<br />
Organisation,<br />
Management &<br />
Training Division<br />
Corporate<br />
Services<br />
Division
<strong>The</strong> two preparatory committees for ECOFIN are <strong>the</strong> Economic and Finance<br />
Committee and <strong>the</strong> Economic Policy Committee. <strong>The</strong> Economic and Finance<br />
Committee (EFC) is a key part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> institutional framework for managing <strong>the</strong> Euro<br />
and <strong>the</strong> EFC and not COREPER is responsible for <strong>the</strong> co-ordination <strong>of</strong> ECOFIN. <strong>The</strong><br />
EFC mainly deals with <strong>the</strong> Stability Pact and Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, along<br />
with issues relating to <strong>the</strong> international representation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Euro Area. <strong>The</strong><br />
Economic Policy Committee (EPC) also works to ECOFIN but has developed a more<br />
specialised role; it now examines more structural and long-term economic issues<br />
such as <strong>the</strong> Lisbon Process. Until <strong>the</strong> second quarter <strong>of</strong> 2000, <strong>the</strong> EFC was serviced<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Banking, Finance and International Services Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
(formerly known as <strong>the</strong> Finance Division). However, with <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Stability Pact, it was decided that <strong>the</strong> Budget and Economic Division would provide<br />
<strong>the</strong> main representation on <strong>the</strong> EFC. <strong>The</strong> Head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> BED represents Ireland on this<br />
Committee and his alternate comes from BFID. Officials from <strong>the</strong> BED also attend<br />
<strong>the</strong> EPC. Internally within <strong>the</strong> system, <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong> Banking, Finance and<br />
International Services Division attend <strong>the</strong> Senior Officials Group and <strong>the</strong> Cabinet<br />
Sub-Committee.<br />
A Department <strong>of</strong> Finance inter-divisional committee on EU affairs has also been<br />
established, to facilitate internal co-ordination <strong>of</strong> EU business and to consider<br />
strategic issues within a broader context. <strong>The</strong> committee’s terms <strong>of</strong> reference are ‘to<br />
serve as a forum for discussion and overview <strong>of</strong> key EU issues pertaining to <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Finance’ (Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach Internal Memorandum).<br />
However, meetings <strong>of</strong> this committee have been infrequent (Interview 63,<br />
10.04.02). <strong>The</strong> internal departmental position on general EU policy issues is coordinated<br />
internally by <strong>the</strong> EU Policy Section within <strong>the</strong> BFID. Four <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong><br />
Department serve in <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation in Brussels dealing with <strong>the</strong><br />
following areas: Finance, Financial Services, EU Budget and Fiscal Affairs. While <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Finance has generally been extremely effective in protecting <strong>Irish</strong><br />
interests (e.g. corporation tax negotiations), it is recognised that <strong>the</strong> resources<br />
available within <strong>the</strong> Department to monitor economic areas such as <strong>the</strong> performance<br />
<strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r member states according to <strong>the</strong> Broad Economic Policy Guidelines are<br />
limited.
<strong>The</strong> remaining divisions within <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance are less centrally involved<br />
in EU business. <strong>The</strong> Public Expenditure Division has a very minor direct EU role but<br />
is a key link to <strong>the</strong> wider governmental system in relation to <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> funds from<br />
Brussels through <strong>the</strong> domestic system. It also has a key role in ensuring that<br />
departments and state agencies observe EU public procurement rules that are<br />
monitored by <strong>the</strong> Government Contracts Committee in this division. In <strong>the</strong> past, <strong>the</strong><br />
Organisation, Training and Management Division has provided training on EU<br />
business, particularly in preparation for <strong>the</strong> presidency. It has also overseen <strong>the</strong><br />
placing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> nationals in international organisations, particularly <strong>the</strong> Commission,<br />
although this role is not always systematic (Interview 53, 12.02.02). Once during<br />
each presidency, directors <strong>of</strong> national public services divisions also meet under <strong>the</strong><br />
aegis <strong>of</strong> this division to discuss issues such as training, mobility and personnel<br />
management.<br />
In summary, <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three departments in <strong>the</strong> core-core <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system are<br />
complementary ra<strong>the</strong>r than competitive. <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach brings <strong>the</strong><br />
authority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prime minister to bear on interdepartmental issues and meetings<br />
called by this department will always be taken seriously. Foreign Affairs brings its<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU, its negotiating expertise and its knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> attitudes <strong>of</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r member states to <strong>the</strong> table. <strong>The</strong>se two departments are major players in all <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> macro-negotiations and have very close relations on <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
business. <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Finance is less involved in macro-issues to do with <strong>the</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU but is central to all aspects <strong>of</strong> economic governance. In<br />
addition to its system wide responsibilities, it has substantive EU dossiers <strong>of</strong> its own<br />
and pays most attention to those.
<strong>The</strong> Inner Core<br />
Although EU business now permeates <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> all line or sectoral departments in<br />
some form, four in particular have key EU responsibilities and form part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> inner<br />
core <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> core executive in managing EU business from home: - Enterprise, Trade<br />
and Employment (ET&E), Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Justice, Equality<br />
and Law Reform, and Environment and Local Government. Toge<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>se<br />
departments account for a sizeable proportion <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s EU business. Given <strong>the</strong><br />
size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se departments and <strong>the</strong> salience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir responsibilities, <strong>the</strong>y have a high<br />
degree <strong>of</strong> departmental autonomy in <strong>the</strong> exercise <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir policy responsibilities and<br />
have a role in <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s overall strategic response to integration.<br />
<strong>The</strong>y also tend to be involved in macro-negotiations in addition to sectoral policy<br />
areas. ET&E and Agriculture have been key plays from <strong>the</strong> outset, whereas Justice<br />
and Environment have become increasingly involved in EU business from <strong>the</strong> 1990s<br />
onwards. <strong>The</strong> EU task facing each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se departments differs greatly one from <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r. Agriculture is a clearly defined sector with a well-organised and politically<br />
significant client group. ET&E is multisectoral with responsibility for a wide range <strong>of</strong><br />
policy areas such as regulation, trade, social and employment policy, consumer<br />
policy, research and certain EU funds. Justice is managing a relatively new but<br />
rapidly changing policy domain, which is characterized by complex decision rules,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> UK and <strong>Irish</strong> opt out from Schengen and aspects <strong>of</strong> Justice and <strong>Home</strong> Affairs.<br />
Environment policy in Ireland is increasingly formulated within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an frame<br />
and environmental issues are touching o<strong>the</strong>r policy areas <strong>of</strong> government and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
departments business, such as sustainable development, which is relevant not only<br />
for Environment but also Agriculture and Arts, Heritage and <strong>the</strong> Gaeltacht and Marine<br />
and Natural Resources. Ireland’s implementation record with regard to EU<br />
environmental legislation is closely monitored by a myriad <strong>of</strong> environmental lobby<br />
groups and NGOs at national and <strong>Europe</strong>an level.<br />
Enterprise, Trade and Employment<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Enterprise, Trade and Employment (ET&E) was established in<br />
1992 and represents a merger between <strong>the</strong> departments <strong>of</strong> Industry and Commerce<br />
and Labour. <strong>The</strong> trade portfolio reverted to this department following <strong>the</strong> 1997<br />
general election. <strong>The</strong> amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Labour and Industry and Commerce was an<br />
important organizational change in <strong>Irish</strong> central government as it combined industrial
development, on <strong>the</strong> one hand, and employment rights, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. In one sense,<br />
it brought <strong>the</strong> two sides <strong>of</strong> industry under one ro<strong>of</strong> and created a very large ministry<br />
with multiple and possibly conflicting responsibilities.<br />
Of all <strong>the</strong> sectoral ministeries, ET&E faces <strong>the</strong> most complex challenge in managing<br />
EU business because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> multifaceted nature <strong>of</strong> its involvement. Every division <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Department is significantly affected by EU activities. Traditionally, until <strong>the</strong> late<br />
1990s, <strong>the</strong> Department serviced six different ministerial Councils – <strong>the</strong> Internal<br />
Market, Consumer Affairs, Industry, Employment and Social Affairs, <strong>the</strong> trade brief in<br />
<strong>the</strong> GAC, and Research. This was <strong>the</strong> largest number <strong>of</strong> Councils serviced by any<br />
one department. <strong>The</strong> reduction in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> Council formations reduced <strong>the</strong><br />
number <strong>of</strong> Councils serviced by <strong>the</strong> department and it now services four Councils:<br />
Industry and Energy, Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism, Employment<br />
and Social Policy and Research. <strong>The</strong> Department still deals with trade items (e.g. <strong>the</strong><br />
World Trade Organisation negotiations) within <strong>the</strong> GAC. <strong>The</strong> management <strong>of</strong> Council<br />
business is rendered even more difficult as two Council formations – Internal Market,<br />
Consumer Affairs and Tourism and Industry and Energy – have agenda items<br />
involving o<strong>the</strong>r home departments. It is <strong>the</strong> practice for <strong>the</strong> Minister to attend <strong>the</strong><br />
Industry Council and for Ministers <strong>of</strong> State to attend <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Councils.<br />
In 1997 <strong>the</strong> Department opted for a policy <strong>of</strong> complete ‘internalisation’ when it<br />
abolished its EU unit that existed since 1969 and assigned responsibility for EU<br />
business to those divisions with sectoral responsibility. This EU unit had come from<br />
<strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Labour when Labour and Industry and Commerce were<br />
amalgamated. <strong>The</strong> consensus was that <strong>the</strong> Unit had a postbox function and no<br />
horizontal co-ordination function. <strong>The</strong> decision to abolish <strong>the</strong> co-ordination unit was<br />
premised on <strong>the</strong> fact that with six ministerial Councils and such a fragmented and<br />
diverse EU involvement, no macro-co-ordination was needed. It was concluded that<br />
complete ‘internalisation’ was <strong>the</strong> most effective strategy. This meant that a lead<br />
co-ordinator was designated for each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> six councils and it also meant that<br />
information had to be sent through five different channels, ra<strong>the</strong>r than having one<br />
contact point. Following <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> decision, a Committee on<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs (CEA) chaired by an assistant secretary was given responsibility for<br />
managing <strong>the</strong> transition and for dealing with horizontal issues. This Committee met<br />
relatively frequently in <strong>the</strong> initial stages <strong>of</strong> its existence but gradually became non-
operational as <strong>the</strong> sectoral coordinators began to focus exclusively on <strong>the</strong>ir policy<br />
domains. However, when <strong>the</strong> Department abolished <strong>the</strong> Unit, it was soon recognised<br />
that it was still needed. This emerged in an inter-divisional study and report<br />
undertaken in <strong>the</strong> EAC and in <strong>the</strong> Department’s Management Advisory Committee.<br />
Gaps in <strong>the</strong> Department’s management <strong>of</strong> EU matters were exposed, notably <strong>the</strong><br />
lack <strong>of</strong> exploitation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> benefits <strong>of</strong> responsibility for five councils and shifts in EU<br />
governance regimes. In September 1999, <strong>the</strong> management board took <strong>the</strong> decision<br />
to reconstitute and expand <strong>the</strong> EU Affairs Section and to re-establish <strong>the</strong> Committee<br />
for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> newly reconstituted EU Affairs Section is small in size, given <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department and consists <strong>of</strong> one Assistant Principal, one administrative <strong>of</strong>ficer and<br />
one part-time clerical <strong>of</strong>ficer. It operates under <strong>the</strong> direction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Assistant<br />
Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Enterprise Competitiveness Division (See figure 7). In spite <strong>of</strong> its<br />
small size, <strong>the</strong> Section <strong>of</strong>fers valuable assistance and support to line divisions within<br />
<strong>the</strong> Department and to staff at <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation in Brussels. It is also<br />
<strong>the</strong> executive secretariat for <strong>the</strong> Department’s Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs and as<br />
external interface represents <strong>the</strong> Department on interdepartmental committees such<br />
as <strong>the</strong> SOG. <strong>The</strong> section is point <strong>of</strong> contact with o<strong>the</strong>r Departments and EU<br />
institutions. As well as being a think-tank, <strong>the</strong> EU affairs section has a monitoring<br />
and tracking role with regard to legislation and horizontal issues. It looks after<br />
bigger issues such as <strong>the</strong> Lisbon agenda, <strong>the</strong> Future <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong> and preparation for<br />
<strong>the</strong> Presidency.<br />
As in its previous incarnation, <strong>the</strong> CEA is chaired by <strong>the</strong> Assistant Secretary in charge<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Enterprise Competitiveness Division. It comprises <strong>of</strong> representatives (at<br />
Principal Officer level) <strong>of</strong> sections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department, which service <strong>the</strong> four EU<br />
Councils. Officials on secondment to <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation Centre are also<br />
part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CEA. As before, it meets infrequently, mostly two or three times a year.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department has five <strong>of</strong>ficials on secondment to <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation<br />
Centre, a number that has remained static since <strong>the</strong> Department was created in<br />
1992.
Figure 7:<br />
Structure <strong>of</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Enterprise, Trade and<br />
Minister for ET&E<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State for<br />
Trade and<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State for<br />
Labour Affairs<br />
Secretary General<br />
Labour Force<br />
Development<br />
Enterprise<br />
Competitiveness<br />
Division<br />
Employment<br />
Rights and<br />
Industrial<br />
Relations<br />
Enterprise,<br />
Science and<br />
Technology<br />
Corporate<br />
Services<br />
Trade,<br />
Competition and<br />
Market Rights<br />
Insurance<br />
and<br />
Company<br />
L
Agriculture<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (D/AFRD) 23 has <strong>the</strong><br />
clearest and most focused competence in relation to EU issues – protection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and implementation <strong>of</strong> CAP regimes in Ireland.<br />
<strong>The</strong> sectoral nature <strong>of</strong> its policy responsibilities, in addition to <strong>the</strong> way in which CAP<br />
policy is made in <strong>Europe</strong>, facilitated a highly targeted approach to <strong>the</strong> management<br />
<strong>of</strong> EU business from <strong>the</strong> outset. Of all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> domestic departments, Agriculture,<br />
since 1973, actively continued to reorganise its structures in order to manage EU<br />
business and <strong>the</strong> Brussels interface. <strong>The</strong> significance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAP to Ireland and its<br />
centrality to <strong>the</strong> EU budget ensured that <strong>the</strong> D/AFRD would undergo major structural<br />
change as a result <strong>of</strong> EU membership.<br />
As a policy area, Agriculture has always held significant importance in Ireland. In<br />
2001, <strong>the</strong> agri-food sector accounted for 10.5 per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> GDP, 10.5 per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
employment and approximately one quarter <strong>of</strong> net foreign earnings from trade<br />
(D/AFRD, 2001, 8). <strong>Managing</strong> <strong>the</strong> boundary with Brussels is a key task <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department. According to <strong>the</strong> 2001-2003 Departmental strategy statement,<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schemes operated by D/AFRD are wholly or partly funded by <strong>the</strong><br />
EU and consequently it is essential to maintain strong effective relationships<br />
with <strong>the</strong> EU institutions and o<strong>the</strong>r member states. Our goals and strategies<br />
reflect <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU in all our activities (D/AFRD, 2001, 23).<br />
D/AFRD makes annual payments <strong>of</strong> some €2.41 billion through over 250 schemes<br />
(wholly or partially funded by <strong>the</strong> EU) to a wide variety <strong>of</strong> customers. <strong>The</strong> changes<br />
in <strong>the</strong> CAP, in 1992 and in Agenda 2000, had major effects on <strong>Irish</strong> agriculture and<br />
on <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> D/AFRD. CAP reform shifted <strong>the</strong> emphasis in EU policy from<br />
market support measures to direct payments to farmers and this, toge<strong>the</strong>r with<br />
structural fund payment reform, led to <strong>the</strong> establishment by <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> new<br />
payment schemes and new accountability procedures. Fur<strong>the</strong>r CAP reform, driven by<br />
<strong>the</strong> world trade negotiations, EU enlargement and reviews <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> agriculture budget<br />
and key commodity sectors (e.g. cereals, milk quotas, sugar) also add to <strong>the</strong> burden<br />
<strong>of</strong> work for <strong>the</strong> Department. <strong>The</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> agricultural support is also increasingly<br />
23 In June 2002, Rural Development was removed and moved to a new Ministry, <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
affected by <strong>the</strong> growing emphasis on environmental issues and <strong>the</strong> increasingly<br />
interlinked debate about food safety, environmental issues and farming methods.<br />
This poses an additional challenge to <strong>the</strong> Department in terms <strong>of</strong> both internal coordination<br />
and structures and managing such issues across <strong>the</strong> core executive<br />
system. According to <strong>the</strong> 2001-2003 Departmental Strategy Statement, <strong>the</strong><br />
challenge for D/AFRD is to ensure that <strong>the</strong> particular needs <strong>of</strong> Ireland are<br />
successfully addressed in <strong>the</strong>se negotiations.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department interacts intensively with <strong>the</strong> EU, both Council and Commission<br />
(both DG Agriculture and for food safety DG Health and Consumer Affairs), through<br />
<strong>the</strong> monthly meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Agriculture Council, <strong>the</strong> weekly meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Special<br />
Committee on Agriculture (SCA), management committees for all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> agricultural<br />
products, and all committees and bilateral mechanisms dealing with <strong>the</strong> payments<br />
and auditing dimension <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CAP. <strong>The</strong> CAP impacts on all levels <strong>of</strong> administration<br />
and policy formulation throughout <strong>the</strong> Department, from secretary general down to<br />
<strong>the</strong> technical staff who implement <strong>the</strong> programmes on <strong>the</strong> ground.<br />
In 1999 it was envisaged that <strong>the</strong> Department would undergo a process <strong>of</strong><br />
reorganisation that would involve a streamlining <strong>of</strong> its <strong>the</strong>n fifty-five divisions (units<br />
headed by a Principal Officer) into three organizational poles – policy development,<br />
FEOGA payments, and food safety and production. In 2001 <strong>the</strong> Department put in<br />
place a new organizational structure, which was intended to establish logical and<br />
clear lines <strong>of</strong> management consistent with <strong>the</strong> changing mandate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
(see figure 8). In <strong>the</strong> new structure, <strong>the</strong> eleven functional areas (63 individual<br />
units/sections), each headed by a member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Management Committee, have<br />
been redefined, and are now grouped under four broad organizational headings –<br />
policy (200 staff), food safety and production (2000 staff), agriculture payments<br />
(1500 staff) and corporate development (600 staff). Within <strong>the</strong> Department, <strong>the</strong><br />
EU/Trade Division is found within <strong>the</strong> EU and Planning Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Policy heading<br />
and coordinates policy on all EU issues, including WTO issues and bilateral trade<br />
matters. <strong>The</strong> EU/Trade Division undertakes policy analysis, negotiates at EU level for<br />
regulatory and trading frameworks for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> agri-food sector, maintains relations<br />
with <strong>the</strong> EU institutions and o<strong>the</strong>r member states through bilateral contacts. <strong>The</strong><br />
Division also coordinates briefings for Council and SCA meetings and Coreper, as well<br />
as bilateral meetings. In addition, <strong>the</strong> division coordinates briefings for <strong>the</strong> Article
133 Committee on EU foreign trade issues affecting agriculture and food sectors and<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong> division also attend weekly co-ordination meetings in <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Enterprise, Trade and Employment. <strong>The</strong> Division also arranges<br />
briefings on EU issues for Oireachtas Committees, MEPs and member state<br />
ambassadors in Ireland. It receives up-to-date information on issues relevant to <strong>the</strong><br />
Department at EU level and disseminates this information throughout <strong>the</strong><br />
Department.<br />
<strong>The</strong> EU Coordinating Group within <strong>the</strong> EU/Trade Division was set up in February 2002<br />
to intensify <strong>the</strong> coordination <strong>of</strong> D/AFRD’s responses to EU developments. <strong>The</strong> group<br />
meets on alternate weeks to identify issues arising at EU management committee,<br />
working group and o<strong>the</strong>r levels that will impinge on discussions at Coreper, SCA and<br />
Council meetings. <strong>The</strong> Group is chaired by <strong>the</strong> Assistant Secretary with responsibility<br />
for EU and Planning. Principal Officers from relevant divisions, i.e. Agricultural<br />
Commodity Division, Finance Division, Economics and Planning Division, Food<br />
Division and <strong>the</strong> EU/Trade Division attend. A Food Safety Unit was also established<br />
in 2001 to coordinate developments on EU food safety policy and attends fortnightly<br />
EU Co-ordinating Group meetings. Finally, <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> EU/Planning attends <strong>the</strong><br />
Senior Officials Group and o<strong>the</strong>r interdepartmental co-ordinating committees on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department.<br />
<strong>From</strong> accession to <strong>the</strong> EU in 1973, <strong>the</strong> Department adopted a very proactive<br />
approach to managing <strong>the</strong> interaction between <strong>the</strong> CAP and <strong>Irish</strong> agriculture. <strong>The</strong><br />
political importance <strong>of</strong> farmers throughout many electoral constituencies, <strong>the</strong><br />
lobbying practices <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir representatives, and <strong>the</strong> economic importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
sector more generally, has meant that <strong>the</strong> CAP has always been accorded <strong>the</strong> status<br />
<strong>of</strong> ‘high politics’ in Ireland. <strong>The</strong> Department built up considerable expertise in <strong>the</strong><br />
complexities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policy, established contacts throughout DG Agriculture in <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission and placed national experts in key units in that Directorate. <strong>The</strong><br />
Department seeks to influence <strong>the</strong> Commission at <strong>the</strong> drafting stage <strong>of</strong> legislation<br />
and will try to voice its preferences long before a set <strong>of</strong> proposals gets to <strong>the</strong> full<br />
Commission. It is like no o<strong>the</strong>r Department in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive system in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> its deep contacts with <strong>Europe</strong>an Union institutions. Officials in <strong>the</strong><br />
Department and Ministers have been scrupulous in attendance at management<br />
committee, working group and Council meetings. <strong>The</strong> contentious nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
proposed reforms to <strong>the</strong> CAP in advance <strong>of</strong> and in order to cope with <strong>the</strong><br />
enlargement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU to include central and Eastern <strong>Europe</strong>an candidate countries,<br />
along with Cyprus and Malta, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> vociferous farming lobby in Ireland<br />
mean that <strong>the</strong> Department will have a very difficult task ahead in its navigation <strong>of</strong><br />
CAP reform and <strong>the</strong> agriculture tranche <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forthcoming EU budgetary<br />
negotiations.<br />
Finally, although <strong>the</strong> Department’s projection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> chosen <strong>Irish</strong> preferences at EU<br />
level has been highly effective, <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policy at national level has<br />
been much more problematic. <strong>The</strong>se problems came more fully into view in <strong>the</strong><br />
aftermath <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> BSE and Food and Mouth crises in 2000-1. Efforts have been made<br />
within <strong>the</strong> Department to address this gap in governance.
Organisational structure<br />
below ministerial level<br />
Agriculture<br />
Payments<br />
Assistant Secretary<br />
level<br />
Direct Payments<br />
Market Supports<br />
Figure 8:<br />
Structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Agriculture, Food and<br />
Rural Development 2002<br />
Policy<br />
EU & Planning<br />
Livestock Policy<br />
EU/Trade<br />
Economics &<br />
Planning<br />
Food Industry<br />
Development<br />
Rural<br />
Development and<br />
Financial Systems<br />
Corporate<br />
Development<br />
Human Resources<br />
Information<br />
Systems<br />
Chief Inspector<br />
Food<br />
Safety &<br />
Production<br />
Chief Veterinary<br />
Officer<br />
Animal Health &<br />
Welfare
Justice, Equality and Law Reform<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Justice, Equality and Law Reform, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Defence, are <strong>the</strong> most recent arrivals to EU policy making in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system.<br />
Prior to <strong>the</strong> inclusion <strong>of</strong> Justice and <strong>Home</strong> Affairs (JHA) in <strong>the</strong> 1992 Treaty on<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Union (TEU), <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong> had been <strong>the</strong> main international body<br />
promoting judicial cooperation in <strong>Europe</strong>. Although <strong>the</strong> EU’s involvement in this field<br />
dates from <strong>the</strong> mid-1970s with what was known as <strong>the</strong> Trevi Group, <strong>the</strong><br />
intensification <strong>of</strong> EU involvement is a feature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1990s and in particular with <strong>the</strong><br />
signature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Treaty <strong>of</strong> Amsterdam. In fact, JHA is <strong>the</strong> most rapidly growing<br />
policy-making area in <strong>the</strong> EU. Following <strong>the</strong> Treaty <strong>of</strong> Amsterdam and <strong>the</strong> Tampere<br />
Justice Council <strong>of</strong> October 1999, JHA has become a central focus <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU with its<br />
target <strong>of</strong> achieving an area <strong>of</strong> ‘freedom, security and justice’ and has involved an<br />
exponential growth in legislation dealing with <strong>the</strong> areas <strong>of</strong> police and judicial<br />
cooperation in criminal matters in particular. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, in <strong>the</strong> aftermath <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
terrorist attacks on <strong>the</strong> US on 11 September 2001, <strong>the</strong> EU member states committed<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves to an extensive and wide-ranging programme <strong>of</strong> measures to combat<br />
terrorism, including <strong>the</strong> negotiation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Arrest Warrant.<br />
Amsterdam in particular altered <strong>the</strong> policy process in a number <strong>of</strong> ways by giving <strong>the</strong><br />
Commission more powers in <strong>the</strong> process, by creating more powerful instruments<br />
such as framework decisions which are not unlike directives and by altering <strong>the</strong> time<br />
frame within which decisions will be taken. As a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Treaty, <strong>the</strong> institutional<br />
mechanisms for this field changed with <strong>the</strong> break up <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> old K4 Committee, which<br />
was <strong>the</strong> main pre-ministerial committee in this policy field, into three committees<br />
responsible for different facets <strong>of</strong> cooperation:<br />
- Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum<br />
- Committee on Civil Law Matters<br />
- Article 36 Committee.<br />
<strong>The</strong> intensity <strong>of</strong> this growth and its impact on <strong>the</strong> overall work programme and<br />
resources <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Justice, Equality and Law Reform has already been<br />
felt and will continue to be felt in coming years. According to <strong>the</strong> Department’s<br />
strategy statement for 2001-2004, <strong>the</strong> Department’s future involvement in EU<br />
matters up to and including <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> EU Presidency in 2004 will be driven largely by<br />
<strong>the</strong> progressive implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> changes introduced under <strong>the</strong> Treaty <strong>of</strong>
Amsterdam and by <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tampere conclusions (Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Justice, 2001). Progress in many respects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Amsterdam and Tampere work<br />
programme will require hard political choices, for example, <strong>the</strong> Schengen opt outs<br />
are an additional complication for <strong>Irish</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials. Distinctions between <strong>the</strong> common<br />
law tradition in Britain and Ireland and <strong>the</strong> continental system <strong>of</strong> codification can<br />
create difficulties in agreeing definitions and procedures, e.g. potentially problematic<br />
issues could include Eurojust, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Judicial Training network and a proposal<br />
for a Common EU Prosecutor. At <strong>the</strong> domestic level, an added challenge to <strong>the</strong><br />
Department’s work is <strong>the</strong> convention that all departmental agreement to proposals<br />
relating to JHA receive <strong>the</strong> rubber stamp <strong>of</strong> cabinet approval. In addition, in<br />
particular in <strong>the</strong> aftermath <strong>of</strong> September 11 th 2001 and <strong>the</strong> negotiations on <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Arrest Warrant (in line with legal advice received), full approval <strong>of</strong> certain<br />
legislation by <strong>the</strong> Dáil and Seanad is also required, i.e. a full scrutiny reserve. This<br />
places an added burden on departmental <strong>of</strong>ficials in terms <strong>of</strong> workload.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a large Department with<br />
eight divisions, all <strong>of</strong> whom have EU involvement <strong>of</strong> some nature (see figure 9). <strong>The</strong><br />
EU and International Division was formerly known as <strong>the</strong> EU, Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland and<br />
Security Division and serviced <strong>the</strong> old K4 Committee. It now acts as <strong>the</strong> coordinating<br />
unit for meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> JHA Council. <strong>The</strong> International Policy Division is responsible<br />
for ensuring a strategic and coherent policy in regard to <strong>the</strong> Department’s<br />
international (including EU) activity. It is <strong>the</strong> main coordinator <strong>of</strong> EU business and<br />
any department <strong>of</strong>ficial who attends a meeting in Brussels must send a report to this<br />
Division. <strong>The</strong> Division is headed by an assistant secretary and currently has nine<br />
staff. In <strong>the</strong> aftermath <strong>of</strong> September 11 th 2001, additional staff were appointed on a<br />
temporary basis. <strong>The</strong> Assistant Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Division attends <strong>the</strong> SOG and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
interdepartmental committees. <strong>The</strong> Division also chairs <strong>the</strong> interdepartmental<br />
committee on JHA (set up in <strong>the</strong> aftermath <strong>of</strong> September 11 th ). This committee<br />
meets before every JHA Council and is serviced by <strong>the</strong> EU and International Unit <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach. <strong>The</strong> Department has four staff members serving<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation. <strong>The</strong> Department’s obligations in terms <strong>of</strong> servicing<br />
JHA working groups are onerous. <strong>The</strong> Department’s line divisions service most <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Council working parties under Title IV and Title VI and o<strong>the</strong>r meetings, with <strong>the</strong><br />
assistance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> International Policy Division and personnel <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Permanent<br />
Representation Centre in Brussels. In 2001, Justice serviced 313 formal meetings,
essentially from Dublin. In 1999 this number was 100. According to one <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
interviewed, Justice is now responsible for approximately seventy per cent <strong>of</strong><br />
COREPER II business (Interview 72, 08.05.02). 24<br />
To reiterate, <strong>the</strong> challenge posed by <strong>the</strong> EU’s JHA policy for <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Justice is significant. As <strong>the</strong> remit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Union expands and <strong>the</strong> decision rules are<br />
modified, <strong>the</strong> Department has had to and will continue to have to adopt new<br />
strategies for JHA business. <strong>The</strong> fragmentation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> field into pillar one, traditional<br />
JHA and Schengen makes it even more difficult to monitor across <strong>the</strong> range and to<br />
assess when Ireland should get involved in negotiations on those areas for which it<br />
has a potential opt out.<br />
24 Coreper II, attended by Permanent Representatives, deals with <strong>the</strong> following policy<br />
areas: General affairs, Economics and Finance, Justice, home affairs and civil<br />
protection, development and budget.
Figure 9:<br />
Structure <strong>of</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Justice, Equality<br />
and Law Reform<br />
2002<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> Justice<br />
Minister <strong>of</strong> State<br />
Secretary General<br />
Departmental<br />
Divisions<br />
Crime<br />
Garda<br />
Prisons and Probation<br />
and Welfare Policy<br />
EU/International<br />
Criminal Law Reform<br />
and Human Rights<br />
Civil Law Reform<br />
Courts Policy<br />
Equality, Childcare and<br />
Disability<br />
Asylum, Immigration<br />
and Citizenship<br />
Business Support<br />
Divisions
Environment<br />
For <strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> this study, <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment and Local<br />
Government (DoELG) is included in <strong>the</strong> inner core <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> governmental<br />
departments. It is included because <strong>the</strong> Department is increasingly involved in<br />
<strong>the</strong> policy coordination <strong>of</strong> horizontal issues across <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. <strong>The</strong> DoELG<br />
was created in 1977 and is ano<strong>the</strong>r example <strong>of</strong> a Department within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core<br />
executive system that is required to deal with a broad range <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong><br />
policies, such as <strong>the</strong> environment, roads, housing, planning and local<br />
government. However, environment as a policy issue in <strong>the</strong> ecological sense was<br />
at <strong>the</strong> fringes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DoELG until <strong>the</strong> 1980s. In response to <strong>the</strong><br />
increased interest in environmental policy at EU level following <strong>the</strong> negotiation <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> SEA, an environmental policy section was created within <strong>the</strong> Department.<br />
With regard to <strong>the</strong> current state <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> environmental policy, <strong>the</strong> central<br />
objective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department is to promote and protect a high quality natural<br />
environment and <strong>the</strong> integration <strong>of</strong> environmental considerations into economic<br />
and sectoral policies (DoELG, 2001, 16). This has proved a considerable task in<br />
<strong>the</strong> face <strong>of</strong> two challenges – <strong>the</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reach <strong>of</strong> EU environmental<br />
protection legislation and <strong>the</strong> increasing pressures encountered in Ireland<br />
associated with economic growth, related consumption patterns and an<br />
underdeveloped environmental infrastructure. According to <strong>the</strong> Department’s<br />
Strategy Statement:<br />
Addressing <strong>the</strong>se challenges successfully requires ongoing policy<br />
development, more effective implementation <strong>of</strong> environmental controls,<br />
greater integration <strong>of</strong> environmental considerations into economic/fiscal<br />
and sectoral policies, providing information and raising awareness towards<br />
behaviour change and continuing to encourage a partnership approach and<br />
<strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> shared responsibility in relation to environmental issues<br />
(DoELG, 2001, 17).<br />
<strong>Irish</strong> environmental policy is fundamentally influenced by policy and legislation at<br />
<strong>the</strong> EU level. For example, <strong>the</strong> two legislative acts relating to waste management<br />
adopted in Ireland since 1996 use EU waste management legislation as <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
primary conceptual frameworks. Implementation at domestic level <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
environmental legislation has also proved problematic, <strong>the</strong> most notable<br />
examples <strong>of</strong> delayed implementation <strong>of</strong> EU directives include <strong>the</strong> Waste Landfill<br />
Directive, and <strong>the</strong> Directive on Drinking Water.
<strong>The</strong> recognition that a high quality environment will not be achieved without <strong>the</strong><br />
integration <strong>of</strong> environmental considerations into economic/fiscal and sectoral<br />
policies necessitates a comprehensive and cross-cutting or horizontal approach to<br />
environmental policy across <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. <strong>The</strong> DoELG is more frequently<br />
required to work in tandem with o<strong>the</strong>r government departments on issues <strong>of</strong> a<br />
cross cutting nature, for example, on water quality and services with <strong>the</strong><br />
Departments <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Marine, Health and Children and Finance, on waste<br />
management with ET&E and Agriculture and on natural heritage issues with <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and <strong>the</strong> Islands.<br />
<strong>The</strong> DoELG services four formal and two informal meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment<br />
Council each year. Within <strong>the</strong> Department, EU co-ordination is carried out in <strong>the</strong><br />
Environment International Section <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment Division. <strong>The</strong> Environment<br />
Division itself comprises <strong>of</strong> nine separate units/sections: Waste Infrastructure and<br />
Regulation, Waste Prevention and Recovery, Environment Policy, Air/Climate,<br />
Water Quality, Environment International, Environment Awareness, North/South<br />
and ENFO. <strong>The</strong> Environment Division is headed by an Assistant Secretary and <strong>the</strong><br />
Environment International Division has three full-time and three half-time staff.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department has also placed an <strong>of</strong>ficial in <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation in<br />
Brussels. It is envisaged that ano<strong>the</strong>r departmental <strong>of</strong>ficial will be seconded to<br />
<strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation by <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> 2002. Unlike <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r Departments<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> inner core, no formal structures (e.g. an EU co-ordinating committee) for<br />
internal departmental co-ordination or co-ordination with o<strong>the</strong>r Government<br />
departments exist in <strong>the</strong> DoELG. In terms <strong>of</strong> formal structures, <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment deals with issues on a case-by-case basis. <strong>The</strong> action taken<br />
depends on <strong>the</strong> subject, <strong>the</strong> issues and <strong>the</strong> implications <strong>of</strong> directives for <strong>the</strong> wider<br />
realm. Any inter- or intra-departmental coordination that does take place is <strong>of</strong> an<br />
ad hoc nature and <strong>of</strong>ten depends on personal contacts. However, a network <strong>of</strong><br />
government departments with interest in <strong>the</strong> environmental area does meet<br />
informally to discuss cross-cutting issues.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Environment International Division is responsible for <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong><br />
ministerial briefing documents and for <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong> briefing documents for<br />
<strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach. Because competencies at EU level do not<br />
always correspond to competencies at departmental level, i.e. working parties<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten deal with dossiers within <strong>the</strong> remit <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r departments, briefs for <strong>the</strong><br />
Environmental Council must sometimes be prepared by o<strong>the</strong>r departments.<br />
Finally, <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment Division attends <strong>the</strong> SOG and o<strong>the</strong>r relevant
interdepartmental committees, such as <strong>the</strong> Interdepartmental Committee on <strong>the</strong><br />
Future <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Interdepartmental Co-ordinating Committee on <strong>the</strong><br />
2004 Presidency.<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attorney General<br />
<strong>The</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attorney General is included in <strong>the</strong> inner core <strong>of</strong> governmental<br />
departments who manage <strong>the</strong> interface with Brussels for one primary reason -<br />
<strong>the</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attorney General <strong>of</strong>fers legal advices and legislative drafting<br />
required as a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State’s membership <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU. Any departmental<br />
queries on EU legislation come to this <strong>of</strong>fice and every statutory instrument or<br />
statute produced in order to transpose EU legislation into <strong>the</strong> domestic is drafted<br />
by this Office. <strong>The</strong> Attorney General is legal advisor to <strong>the</strong> Government and <strong>the</strong><br />
Chief State Solicitor (<strong>the</strong> Attorney General’s legal partner within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system)<br />
acts as Agent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Government before <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Court <strong>of</strong> Justice. <strong>From</strong><br />
January 2002 an EU Group was established within <strong>the</strong> Office with a designated EU<br />
Coordinator for Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attorney General – Group E. Group E is one <strong>of</strong> five<br />
specialist groups in <strong>the</strong> advisory stream <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Attorney General’s Office. A Legal<br />
Counsellor from <strong>the</strong> Office is also posted to <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation in<br />
Brussels. <strong>The</strong> growth in legislation in <strong>the</strong> JHA area in particular has led to fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> already close relationship <strong>the</strong> Office shares with <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Justice in particular.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Outer Circle<br />
Departments in <strong>the</strong> inner core and outer circle differ in two ways with regard to<br />
structures. First, <strong>the</strong> primary responsibilities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> outer<br />
circle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> executive continue to lie in <strong>the</strong> national arena. Even so, such is<br />
<strong>the</strong> reach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU, particularly with <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> open method <strong>of</strong> coordination<br />
as a mode <strong>of</strong> governance, each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> departments in <strong>the</strong> outer circle<br />
finds itself increasingly obliged to manage EU business to varying degrees. Each<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> departments in <strong>the</strong> outer circle have placed staff in <strong>the</strong> permanent<br />
representation in Brussels. It must also be borne in mind that <strong>the</strong> EU’s<br />
competences in policy areas within <strong>the</strong> remit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se departments is also<br />
relatively weak in comparison with policy areas covered by departments in <strong>the</strong><br />
inner core. Second, departments in <strong>the</strong> outer circle may or may not have specific<br />
divisions or units dedicated to dealing with EU business. To reiterate,<br />
departments placed in <strong>the</strong> outer circle include <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Enterprise, Department <strong>of</strong> Defence, Department <strong>of</strong> Arts, Heritage, <strong>the</strong> Gaeltacht<br />
and <strong>the</strong> Islands, <strong>the</strong> Department Education and Science, Department <strong>of</strong> Health
and Children, Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Marine and Natural Resources, Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Social, Community and Family Affairs and <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Tourism, Sport and<br />
Recreation.<br />
<strong>From</strong> 1992-1997 <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Enterprise, comprising <strong>of</strong> transport,<br />
energy and communications’ policy areas, serviced three separate EU Councils:<br />
Transport, Energy and Telecommunications. Despite <strong>the</strong> fact that a large<br />
proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legislative programme <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department is dictated by <strong>the</strong><br />
negotiation, drafting and implementation <strong>of</strong> EU directives and regulations, <strong>the</strong><br />
Department did not have a dedicated EU unit. Within <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Enterprise policy on specific matters with EU import was formulated at divisional<br />
level in response to issues as <strong>the</strong>y arose. In relation to briefing for EU Councils,<br />
one person in each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sectors Transport, Energy and Telecommunications had<br />
responsibility for co-ordinating <strong>the</strong> compilation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Minister’s brief. <strong>From</strong> 1998-<br />
2002 <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Telecommunications Division attended <strong>the</strong> SOG and <strong>the</strong><br />
various interdepartmental co-ordinating committees. With <strong>the</strong> reorganisation <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Department following <strong>the</strong> 2002 General Election, <strong>the</strong> transport brief has now<br />
moved to its own department, telecommunications and energy remain with <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Communications, <strong>the</strong> Marine and Natural Resources.<br />
Since <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CFSP and <strong>the</strong> ESDP in particular, <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Defence’s involvement in EU business has grown. <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Defence<br />
works closely with <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs in particular and also with<br />
<strong>the</strong> former Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Marine and Natural Resources in co-ordinating<br />
Ireland’s position on security and defence issues. An International Security and<br />
Defence Policy Branch was set up within <strong>the</strong> Department and has primary<br />
responsibility for dealing with Defence inputs into <strong>the</strong> formulation <strong>of</strong> policy issues<br />
which arise in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> developing ESDP. Within <strong>the</strong> Department, <strong>the</strong><br />
International Security and Defence Policy Branch (ISDP) has primary<br />
responsibility for dealing with Defence inputs to <strong>the</strong> formulation <strong>of</strong> policy issues<br />
which arise in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> developing <strong>Europe</strong>an Security and Defence<br />
Policy. It is important to reiterate that <strong>the</strong> Minister for Foreign Affairs has overall<br />
responsibility for international security policy and <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Minister for<br />
Defence and <strong>the</strong> Defence organisation is essentially a supportive one. <strong>The</strong> ISDP<br />
Branch is small in size with a staff <strong>of</strong> three <strong>of</strong>ficials with a small number <strong>of</strong> clerical<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers. A member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> staff is also seconded to <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation<br />
in Brussels. <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Defence is <strong>the</strong> DFA’s link with <strong>the</strong> Defence Forces<br />
and its primary role is policy making, <strong>the</strong> Defence forces deal with <strong>the</strong>
implementation <strong>of</strong> policy. Representatives from <strong>the</strong> Defence Forces also serve on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Military Committee <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ESDP. <strong>The</strong> ISDP Branch has not had <strong>the</strong> task <strong>of</strong><br />
servicing an EU Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers Meeting until May 2002 when <strong>the</strong> first formal<br />
Defence Council was held within <strong>the</strong> framework <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> GAC.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Education and Science is responsible for <strong>the</strong> Education and<br />
Youth Council (which now meets three times a year) and is represented on a<br />
range <strong>of</strong> programme committees for EU education, training and youth<br />
programmes. <strong>The</strong> main EU business <strong>the</strong> Department has to deal with revolves<br />
around <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> structural funds (both from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Social<br />
Fund and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Regional Development Fund; implementation is carried<br />
out in cooperation with ET&E and Finance) and <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Socrates, Leonardo Da Vinci (administered by Leargas and <strong>the</strong> Higher Education<br />
Authority respectively) and Youth programmes. Education and lifelong learning is<br />
a vital component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Lisbon process and <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> open method <strong>of</strong> coordination<br />
in <strong>the</strong> education area will necessitate fur<strong>the</strong>r involvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department in EU business. <strong>The</strong> International Policy Unit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
services working group meetings in Brussels, along with <strong>the</strong> Departmental<br />
attaché (first appointed in 2001, interview 78, 18.07.02). In order to manage <strong>the</strong><br />
increasing education agenda, <strong>the</strong> Department established an EU Consultative<br />
Group <strong>of</strong> senior managers who meet on a regular basis to discuss proposals from<br />
<strong>the</strong> Commission.<br />
As with <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Education and Children, <strong>the</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong> Social and<br />
Family Affairs (from 1992-97 <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Social, Community and Family<br />
Affairs) and <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Health and Children must service sectoral Councils<br />
and are involved in EU policy initiatives through <strong>the</strong> Open Method <strong>of</strong> Coordination.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Health and Children services <strong>the</strong> Health Council,<br />
which deals with issues such as food safety and medicinal products. Within <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Health and Children, <strong>the</strong> EU Co-ordination function is located in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Insurance and International Division and is dealt with full time by one <strong>of</strong>ficial,<br />
who attends <strong>the</strong> SOG and o<strong>the</strong>r interdepartmental committees. <strong>The</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Health also has an <strong>of</strong>ficial seconded to <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation to <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
in Brussels who attends <strong>the</strong> Health Working Group. Relevant departmental<br />
experts attend working groups when specialised issues are under discussion.<br />
Within <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Social and Family Affairs, <strong>the</strong> EU/International Section<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Department’s Planning Unit has overall responsibility for coordinating <strong>the</strong>
Department’s business in relation to EU and international fora. <strong>The</strong> Unit has a<br />
staff <strong>of</strong> 10 led by one principal <strong>of</strong>ficer. <strong>The</strong> core business <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> section is<br />
monitoring <strong>the</strong> development and application <strong>of</strong> EU Regulations on social security<br />
for migrant workers. <strong>The</strong> Unit also monitors <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> EU policy on<br />
social protection, combating social protection and pension policy through <strong>the</strong><br />
open method <strong>of</strong> coordination (OMC). <strong>The</strong> OMC has brought <strong>the</strong> Department,<br />
traditionally thought <strong>of</strong> as a department primarily located in <strong>the</strong> domestic arena,<br />
in more frequent contact with <strong>the</strong> institutions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU. <strong>The</strong> Department has one<br />
representative in Brussels and <strong>the</strong> representative, along with <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
EU/International Section mainly service Council working groups such as <strong>the</strong> Social<br />
Protection Committee.<br />
Prior to <strong>the</strong> reorganisation <strong>of</strong> Government departments following <strong>the</strong> 2002<br />
General Election, <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Marine and Natural Resources serviced<br />
<strong>the</strong> EU Fisheries Council. <strong>The</strong> EU has played key policy, legislative and financial<br />
roles in a number <strong>of</strong> areas falling within <strong>the</strong> Department’s remit, including<br />
fisheries, forestry, maritime transport, marine environmental protection, marine<br />
safety and mining. Particular aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department’s engagement with EU<br />
matters tended to fall within <strong>the</strong> remit <strong>of</strong> individual Divisions, no one division was<br />
devoted to <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU business. On <strong>the</strong> occasions where EU issues<br />
transcended <strong>the</strong> responsibilities <strong>of</strong> individual Divisions, <strong>the</strong> relevant Divisions<br />
tended to liaise on an ad hoc basis, with more formal coordination being<br />
conducted, as required, by <strong>the</strong> Second Secretary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department. General EU<br />
coordination services (e.g. dissemination <strong>of</strong> information) were provided by <strong>the</strong><br />
Corporate Management Division. <strong>The</strong> Departmental representative in Brussels,<br />
along with <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong> home department, serviced <strong>the</strong> relevant working<br />
groups in Brussels.<br />
Finally, before <strong>the</strong> reorganisation <strong>of</strong> government departments in 2002, <strong>the</strong><br />
Departments <strong>of</strong> Arts, Heritage, <strong>the</strong> Gaeltacht and <strong>the</strong> Islands (DoAHGI) and <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Tourism, Sport and Recreation (DoTSR) had limited engagement<br />
with <strong>the</strong> EU arena. <strong>The</strong> DoAHGI had no international or EU division or<br />
coordinating section and <strong>the</strong> Corporate Development Division provided a contact<br />
point for general EU developments. <strong>From</strong> 1997 to 2002, <strong>the</strong> DoTSR had no direct<br />
role to play in <strong>the</strong> transposition <strong>of</strong> EU legislation and on a general level various<br />
divisions within <strong>the</strong> Department were involved in <strong>the</strong> work undertaken by a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> EU committees. <strong>The</strong> DoTSR did differ from <strong>the</strong> DoAHGI in that it had a<br />
designated EU Coordinator.
HORIZONTAL STRUCTURES<br />
<strong>The</strong> Cabinet<br />
<strong>The</strong> Cabinet is <strong>the</strong> main centre <strong>of</strong> political decision making in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. It<br />
processes EU issues according to <strong>the</strong> same standard operating procedures and<br />
rules that govern <strong>the</strong> processing <strong>of</strong> domestic issues. An item for discussion and<br />
decision comes from <strong>the</strong> relevant minister in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a memorandum. Foreign<br />
Affairs is <strong>the</strong> funnel for <strong>the</strong> macro-issues and <strong>the</strong> sectoral departments for items<br />
that fall within <strong>the</strong>ir remit. <strong>The</strong>re is some concern that significant EU directives<br />
may only come to Cabinet at <strong>the</strong> transposition phase, which is too late for <strong>the</strong><br />
Cabinet as a whole to exercise any influence. <strong>The</strong>re is a process underway<br />
designed to align <strong>the</strong> treatment <strong>of</strong> EU law and national law in terms <strong>of</strong> approval<br />
and <strong>the</strong> Cabinet handbook is being revised to address this. Although under<br />
institutionalised by continental standards, <strong>the</strong> sub-structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Cabinet<br />
has been streng<strong>the</strong>ned by <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> Cabinet subcommittees,<br />
including an EU Committee. In preparation for <strong>the</strong> 2004 Presidency,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Committee meets once every two weeks and is chaired by <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach. It is<br />
attended by <strong>the</strong> key ministers with an EU brief, ministerial advisors, and senior<br />
civil servants. It deals with contentious issues and broad policy issues. Cabinet<br />
committees are seen as a focal point for <strong>of</strong>ficials and as lending urgency and<br />
salience to issues.<br />
Committees<br />
In all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> member states, committees at different levels in <strong>the</strong> hierarchy play a<br />
central role in <strong>the</strong> inter-ministerial or horizontal co-ordination <strong>of</strong> EU affairs. <strong>The</strong>y<br />
are <strong>the</strong> main institutional devices for formal horizontal co-ordination. Of course,<br />
<strong>the</strong> number, remit and extent <strong>of</strong> institutional embeddedness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se interministerial<br />
co-ordinating committees varies from member state to member state.<br />
A key characteristic <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> committee system was its institutional fluidity and<br />
malleability. See Table 5 for a chronology <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> differing committee devices that<br />
have been established in Ireland. Between 1973 and 1987, <strong>the</strong> key<br />
interdepartmental committee in Ireland was <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities<br />
Committee, chaired by <strong>the</strong> Secretary General and later by <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Economic Division in <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs. As stated earlier in this<br />
report, in March 1987, <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, re-established <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Communities Committee, with Maire Geoghegan-Quinn, Minister <strong>of</strong><br />
State for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs, as its chair. Mr Haughey later established a Ministers<br />
and Secretaries Group (MSG) in 1988 to prepare Ireland’s national plan arising
from <strong>the</strong> significant expansion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU’s structural and cohesion funds and he<br />
set up a Group for <strong>the</strong> Presidency in 1989. A period <strong>of</strong> institutional innovation<br />
began as a consequence with <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> ministerial and senior <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
committees to deal with approaching presidencies and issues <strong>of</strong> a cross-cutting<br />
nature. Throughout <strong>the</strong> 1990s, a variety <strong>of</strong> committees were established to deal<br />
with <strong>the</strong> key agenda issues.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Ministers and Secretaries’ Group continued under <strong>the</strong> incoming Fianna Fáil/PD<br />
government in 1997 and was described as having a ‘general supervisory role in<br />
relation to EU policy’ by <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, in reply to a Dáil question in<br />
September 1998. 25 <strong>The</strong> intensity <strong>of</strong> MSG meetings was only 6 in 1997 and 7 in<br />
1998. Its work was prepared by a senior <strong>of</strong>ficials group at assistant secretary<br />
level that produced papers for consideration by <strong>the</strong> higher level group. <strong>The</strong> MSG<br />
did not meet in 1999 because its work was superseded by a cabinet subcommittee<br />
(number <strong>of</strong> meetings unknown) and an Expert Technical Group that<br />
focused on <strong>the</strong> Agenda 2000 negotiations up to <strong>the</strong> Berlin Summit <strong>of</strong> March<br />
1999. 26<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> committee system is finally beginning to become embedded in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
system. At its apex is <strong>the</strong> Cabinet and <strong>the</strong> Cabinet sub-committee. Below this is<br />
<strong>the</strong> Roche Committee, which in turn can set up sub-groups. <strong>The</strong> Cabinet Sub-<br />
Committee is serviced by <strong>the</strong> Roche Committee or directly by Government<br />
Departments on EU matters. <strong>The</strong> Minister <strong>of</strong> State for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs chairs <strong>the</strong><br />
Roche or Interdepartmental Coordinating Committee for <strong>Europe</strong>an Union Affairs<br />
and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an and International Affairs Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department provides<br />
<strong>the</strong> Secretariat for <strong>the</strong> Committee. Senior Officials, usually at Assistant Secretary<br />
or Principal Officer level, attend <strong>the</strong> Committee from each Department, along with<br />
<strong>the</strong> Permanent Representative who is based in Brussels. <strong>From</strong> December 2002,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Roche Committee has met every second week, before <strong>the</strong> Cabinet Sub-<br />
Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs. <strong>The</strong> Committee is used as an early warning<br />
system for potentially problematic issues arising out <strong>of</strong> EU business, as well as a<br />
forum to facilitate strategic thinking across government departments. As in <strong>the</strong><br />
25 http://www.irlgov.ie/debates-98/30sep98/sect1.htm (question 17485/98).<br />
26 <strong>The</strong> expert Technical Group met seven times between January and <strong>the</strong> Berlin<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Council to develop a detailed negotiating strategy for <strong>the</strong> end phase <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Agenda 2000 negotiations. <strong>The</strong> group consisted <strong>of</strong> four key <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong><br />
Departments <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, Finance, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and<br />
Agriculture and food who were involved in <strong>the</strong> Agenda 200 negotiations from <strong>the</strong><br />
outset. This group was chaired by <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach and serviced by <strong>the</strong> head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an and International Secretariat <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach.
Cabinet Sub-Committee, <strong>the</strong> practice <strong>of</strong> holding presentations on relevant issues<br />
also takes place within <strong>the</strong> Committee.<br />
Senior <strong>of</strong>ficials from government departments also attend a number <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
generally ad hoc, inter-departmental committees designed to deal with specific<br />
cross-cutting issues. In <strong>the</strong> aftermath <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> September 11 th tragedy, an<br />
interdepartmental committee was set up, was chaired by <strong>the</strong> Second Secretary<br />
and serviced by <strong>the</strong> EU and International Affairs Division. O<strong>the</strong>r interdepartmental<br />
committees dealing with cross-cutting EU issues include<br />
Enlargement 27 , Justice and <strong>Home</strong> Affairs 28 , <strong>the</strong> Future <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong> 29 , and <strong>the</strong> 2004<br />
Presidency committees 30 , <strong>the</strong> Lisbon Group 31 and <strong>the</strong> Convention Overview<br />
Group 32 (See figure 10 below).<br />
<strong>The</strong> ongoing Lisbon Agenda poses a fundamental challenge to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system<br />
with regard to <strong>the</strong> structures necessary to handle cross-cutting issues. <strong>The</strong><br />
primary reason behind this is <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> open method <strong>of</strong><br />
coordination as a policy mechanism within <strong>the</strong> EU. <strong>The</strong> diverse and broad range<br />
<strong>of</strong> policy areas that are ga<strong>the</strong>red under <strong>the</strong> Lisbon umbrella necessitate some<br />
form <strong>of</strong> central coordination. Heret<strong>of</strong>ore, this overall coordination has been<br />
undertaken by <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach but if this practice is to continue,<br />
a greater degree <strong>of</strong> resources will need to be allocated to <strong>the</strong> EU and<br />
International Affairs Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach.<br />
27 Chaired and serviced by <strong>the</strong> EU Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs.<br />
28 In <strong>the</strong> immediate aftermath <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> September 11 th tragedy, it soon became<br />
clear that <strong>the</strong> negotiation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Arrest Warrant and Framework<br />
decision on terrorism necessitated more intensive mechanisms within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
system. An interdepartmental committee was set up to deal with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Arrest Warrant negotiations, included <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong> Departments <strong>of</strong> Foreign<br />
Affairs, Finance, Justice, <strong>the</strong> Attorney General’s <strong>of</strong>fice and <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Taoiseach. <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Justice was <strong>the</strong> lead department on this issue and<br />
an <strong>of</strong>ficial from this department chaired <strong>the</strong> committee. <strong>The</strong> Committee was<br />
serviced by <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach. On <strong>the</strong> conclusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Arrest Warrant negotiations, this committee became <strong>the</strong> Interdepartmental<br />
Committee on Justice and <strong>Home</strong> Affairs and generally meets before every Justice<br />
and <strong>Home</strong> Affairs Council meeting.<br />
29 Chaired and serviced by <strong>the</strong> EU Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs.<br />
30 Chaired and serviced by <strong>the</strong> EU Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs.<br />
31 Chaired and serviced by <strong>the</strong> EU and International Division <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Taoiseach.<br />
32 Chaired and serviced by <strong>the</strong> EU and International Unit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Taoiseach. This group meets once a week and includes <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, Finance, Attorney General’s Office and <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Table 5: EU Committees in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> System<br />
Period Committee Chair<br />
Pre-Accession<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Communities Department <strong>of</strong> Finance<br />
Committee<br />
1973-84 <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities<br />
Committee<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign<br />
Affairs<br />
1985-87 No meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
committee<br />
1987-90 <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities<br />
Committee<br />
Geoghegan-Quinn<br />
(Minister <strong>of</strong> State)<br />
1988-90 Ministers and Secretaries Haughey (Taoiseach)<br />
Group<br />
1989-90 Ministerial Group on <strong>the</strong> Haughey (Taoiseach)<br />
Presidency<br />
1992-94 <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities Kitt (Minister <strong>of</strong> State)<br />
Committee<br />
1994-97 <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities Mitchell (Minister <strong>of</strong> State)<br />
Committee<br />
1994-1999 Ministers and Secretaries Bruton/Ahern (Taoiseach)<br />
Group<br />
1994-98 Senior Officials Group Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Taoiseach<br />
1998-99 Expert Technical Group Ahern (Taoiseach)<br />
1998- Cabinet Sub-Committee Ahern (Taoiseach)<br />
1998-2002 Senior Officials Group Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Taoiseach<br />
2002- Interdepartmental<br />
Coordinating Committee<br />
on <strong>Europe</strong>an Union Affairs<br />
Roche (Minister <strong>of</strong> State)
Figure 10:<br />
Central Committees for <strong>the</strong> Organisation <strong>of</strong> Cross-Cutting EU Issues 2002<br />
Cabinet<br />
Cabinet Sub-<br />
Committee on<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs<br />
Interdepartmental<br />
Committees<br />
Interdepartmental<br />
Coordinating<br />
Committee on<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Union<br />
Affairs<br />
D/Taoiseach<br />
Lisbon Group<br />
Convention<br />
Overview Group<br />
D/Foreign<br />
Affairs<br />
Future <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong> Group<br />
Presidency I<br />
Group –<br />
Logistics<br />
Presidency II<br />
Group – Policy<br />
D/ETE<br />
Article 133<br />
Committee<br />
D/JELR<br />
JHA<br />
Committee
<strong>The</strong> Permanent Representation<br />
<strong>The</strong> Permanent Representation is an integral part <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s management <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
business. It is a microcosm <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s core executive in Brussels. <strong>The</strong> number<br />
<strong>of</strong> staff <strong>of</strong> diplomatic rank increased from 7 in 1971 to 15 in 1973 following<br />
accession. <strong>The</strong> 1975 Presidency led to <strong>the</strong> next important increase in <strong>the</strong> staffing<br />
levels to 24 to manage <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Presidency. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> staff in <strong>the</strong><br />
representation remained relatively stable for <strong>the</strong> remainder <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1970s and<br />
1980s. <strong>The</strong> next significant increase in staffing came in <strong>the</strong> 1990s when a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> domestic ministries felt <strong>the</strong> need for a presence in Brussels. By 1999<br />
<strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> diplomatic rank rose to 35 and had reached 40 by 2002.<br />
<strong>The</strong> number does not include <strong>the</strong> four military staff in <strong>the</strong> representation.<br />
<strong>The</strong> expansion <strong>of</strong> staff from <strong>the</strong> mid-1990s onwards points to <strong>the</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
related business in <strong>the</strong> post TEU and Amsterdam environment and to <strong>the</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>anisation <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> domestic ministries. <strong>The</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
representation is in comparative terms very small. Apart from Luxembourg, it is<br />
<strong>the</strong> smallest representation among <strong>the</strong> member states. <strong>The</strong> incremental process<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation is evident in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> ministries that have a presence in<br />
<strong>the</strong> representation. In 1973, six ministries had staff in Brussels. A fur<strong>the</strong>r three<br />
ministries joined <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong> late 1970s and 1980s. In <strong>the</strong> 1990s and onwards<br />
<strong>the</strong> Ministries <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Marine (1991), Justice (1995), Health (1996), Attorney<br />
General’s Office (1999), Defence (2000), Education (2001), Arts Culture and <strong>the</strong><br />
Gaeltacht (2002) were added to <strong>the</strong> list. All domestic departments with <strong>the</strong><br />
exception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s department and one o<strong>the</strong>r relatively minor ministry<br />
are represented in Brussels.<br />
<strong>The</strong> departmental breakdown <strong>of</strong> staff at representation reflects <strong>the</strong> important role<br />
played by <strong>the</strong> Foreign Ministry in Brussels. It has 15 staff in <strong>the</strong> representation<br />
including <strong>the</strong> three most senior staff. <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Enterprise, Trade and<br />
Employment has five staff, and a fur<strong>the</strong>r three departments have three staff<br />
each. Eight ministries have only one member <strong>of</strong> staff in <strong>the</strong> representation. No<br />
domestic ministry has more than five staff in Brussels. <strong>The</strong> staff <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
representation is formally part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Foreign Service when in Brussels but <strong>the</strong><br />
domestic departments decide who should go to Brussels. Foreign Affairs have<br />
never formally attempted to direct <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> recruitment.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> representation is organised along functional lines arising from <strong>the</strong> work<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Council and its working parties and <strong>the</strong> departmental presence in Brussels.
In addition, it is hierarchical in that <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representative, <strong>the</strong> Deputy<br />
and <strong>the</strong> ambassador to <strong>the</strong> Political and Security Committee carry <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir position at <strong>the</strong> apex <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice. <strong>The</strong> Permanent Representative is <strong>the</strong><br />
head <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice. Since 1973, Ireland has had seven Permanent<br />
Representatives who tend to stay in Brussels for an average <strong>of</strong> five years. <strong>The</strong><br />
first permanent representative spent eight years in Brussels, which reflected <strong>the</strong><br />
early phase <strong>of</strong> membership. Two <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representatives had acted as<br />
deputies in <strong>the</strong> representation with <strong>the</strong> result that <strong>the</strong>y had considerable EU<br />
experience. <strong>The</strong>y came to <strong>the</strong> posts with considerable EU and Council<br />
experience. In 2001, Ireland appointed Anne Anderson to <strong>the</strong> post <strong>of</strong> Permanent<br />
Representative, <strong>the</strong> first woman member <strong>of</strong> COREPER.<br />
<strong>The</strong> cycle <strong>of</strong> Council, COREPER and working party business sets <strong>the</strong> tempo <strong>of</strong><br />
work in <strong>the</strong> Representation. <strong>The</strong> Antici person (COREPER I) and Mertens<br />
(COREPER II) prepare <strong>the</strong> work COREPER with <strong>the</strong> Presidency and <strong>the</strong> Council<br />
Secretariat. Meetings <strong>of</strong> COREPER act as a filter between <strong>the</strong> political and <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial. Issues are pushed to <strong>the</strong> limit here to determine if <strong>the</strong>y should be sent<br />
up to <strong>the</strong> Council level or back down to <strong>the</strong> working parties for fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
consideration. At this level, national positions are highlighted and <strong>the</strong><br />
representatives come under pressure from <strong>the</strong>ir counterparts. According to one<br />
former ambassador, <strong>the</strong> ‘real wearing down process goes on in COREPER’<br />
because this is where <strong>the</strong> trade-<strong>of</strong>fs takes place. According to this <strong>of</strong>ficial, ‘<strong>The</strong><br />
major job <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Permanent representative is to ask ‘is this something we can<br />
win’ and ‘what will I advise <strong>the</strong> Minster’ (Interview 55, 07.03.2002). <strong>The</strong>re would<br />
be continuous and high level contact between Dublin and Brussels during<br />
sensitive negotiations on <strong>the</strong> stance Ireland should take. <strong>The</strong> members <strong>of</strong><br />
COREPER II and I operate at <strong>the</strong> coalface between <strong>the</strong> national and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
and between <strong>the</strong> technical and <strong>the</strong> political. <strong>The</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ambassadors is to<br />
push things along and to solve <strong>the</strong> problems through negotiations. <strong>The</strong><br />
ambassadors have a keen sense <strong>of</strong> where <strong>the</strong> eventual compromise will lie and<br />
<strong>the</strong>y work to ensure that <strong>the</strong> political level can solve <strong>the</strong> outstanding political<br />
issues. <strong>The</strong>y are very sensitive to each o<strong>the</strong>r’s problems and will try to assist <strong>the</strong><br />
state in <strong>the</strong> most exposed position. Given <strong>the</strong> technical nature <strong>of</strong> much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
business <strong>of</strong> COREPER I, <strong>the</strong> deputy ambassador require considerable knowledge<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> domestic issues. <strong>The</strong> ambassadors tend to challenge <strong>the</strong> briefing material<br />
<strong>the</strong>y receive because <strong>the</strong>y do not want to find <strong>the</strong>mselves exposed at COREPER<br />
attempting to defend a position that was weakened through bad presentation or<br />
inattention to <strong>the</strong> evolution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dossier.
SECTION III – PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES<br />
Having outlined <strong>the</strong> key structures in Section II, we turn now to how <strong>the</strong><br />
structures work in practice. A key factor is <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU calendar and <strong>the</strong><br />
collective agenda. No member state controls <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> issues on <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
agenda, <strong>the</strong> manner in which <strong>the</strong>y are dealt with, <strong>the</strong> tempo <strong>of</strong> collective decision<br />
making and <strong>the</strong> eventual outcome. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> central means by which <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
manages to create a capacity for collective decision making is to establish<br />
timetables for decision making— Commission annual and multiannual<br />
programmes, rotating Presidencies, multiannual sectoral programmes,<br />
multiannual financing, periodic reviews <strong>of</strong> legislation and programmes, and<br />
targets to be achieved by a certain date. <strong>The</strong> use <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> calendar technique is a<br />
central feature <strong>of</strong> EU governance. <strong>The</strong> consequence <strong>of</strong> this for national<br />
administrations is that domestic processes and procedures must have <strong>the</strong><br />
capacity to enable national actors participate in an extra-national policy making<br />
system with its own tempo and agenda setting dynamic. Moreover, domestic<br />
systems must have <strong>the</strong> capacity to participate in a number <strong>of</strong> different EU<br />
governance modes such as regulation, re-distribution, and benchmarking and<br />
light policy co-ordination.<br />
Codes, Rules and Guidelines that govern <strong>the</strong> handling <strong>of</strong> EU business<br />
Ireland’s management <strong>of</strong> EU business is not highly formalised. <strong>The</strong>re is no Bible<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs ei<strong>the</strong>r for <strong>the</strong> system as a whole or within individual<br />
departments. Unlike <strong>the</strong> UK system <strong>the</strong>re is no tradition <strong>of</strong> putting on paper<br />
Guidance Notes on substantive policy issues or horizontal procedural issues<br />
(Bulmer and Burch 2000) Those rules and guidelines that exist can be found in a<br />
series <strong>of</strong> Government Decisions, a small number rules and circulars issued from<br />
time to time by <strong>the</strong> Foreign Ministry and <strong>the</strong> Finance Ministry. <strong>The</strong> rules and<br />
guidelines that exist relate to <strong>the</strong> following matters:<br />
• Cabinet rules on how a memorandum should be prepared for and<br />
processed through <strong>the</strong> Cabinet;<br />
• Original Foreign Affairs Circular on how EU business should be handled<br />
(1973 and subsequently amended albeit rarely);<br />
• Department <strong>of</strong> Finance rules about notification <strong>of</strong> policies and<br />
programmes that might lead to a cost to <strong>the</strong> Exchequer;
• Rules and guidelines about <strong>the</strong> drafting <strong>of</strong> governmental bills and<br />
statutory instruments should be handled between an individual<br />
department and <strong>the</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> Parliamentary Council in <strong>the</strong> Attorney<br />
General’s Office.<br />
Departmental rules and guidelines within individual ministries supplement <strong>the</strong>se<br />
rules and guidelines. An important feature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system is <strong>the</strong> dominance<br />
<strong>of</strong> convention and ‘standard operating procedures’ over formal rules and<br />
guidelines. <strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs has never in <strong>the</strong> past adopted <strong>the</strong><br />
role <strong>of</strong> producing codes, rules and guidelines for <strong>the</strong> system as a whole. Such an<br />
approach would go against <strong>the</strong> deep-rooted convention <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> dominance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
lead department in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. <strong>The</strong> need for improved parliamentary<br />
scrutiny following <strong>the</strong> Nice ‘no’ has led to <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> new rules and<br />
guidelines. <strong>The</strong>se are discussed in <strong>the</strong> section on parliamentary scrutiny.<br />
<strong>The</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> briefing material is not systematised in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system at all<br />
levels in <strong>the</strong> hierarchy. In fact it is not until Council and <strong>Europe</strong>an Council<br />
meetings that <strong>the</strong>re is systematic preparation <strong>of</strong> briefing material. For working<br />
groups, those attending are responsible for ensuring that <strong>the</strong>y have consulted<br />
with interested sections within <strong>the</strong>ir own departments and with o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
departments. If an <strong>of</strong>ficer from <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation is attending, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
will contact <strong>the</strong> relevant domestic sections to get briefing material and will discuss<br />
<strong>the</strong> position <strong>the</strong>y are likely to take with <strong>the</strong>ir domestic counterpart. As an issue<br />
moves up <strong>the</strong> Council hierarchy to COREPER or <strong>the</strong> high level Committees <strong>the</strong>re<br />
are a variety <strong>of</strong> procedures and processes in place. <strong>The</strong>re is not a practice <strong>of</strong><br />
sending written instructions to <strong>the</strong> COREPER representatives from Dublin or <strong>of</strong><br />
holding pre-COREPER meetings in <strong>the</strong> national capital. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, within <strong>the</strong><br />
Representation, <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representative and <strong>the</strong> Deputy establish <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
own modus vivendi with <strong>the</strong> attachés concerned. <strong>The</strong>y usually insist on a written<br />
brief on all agenda items. <strong>The</strong> material is supplied by <strong>the</strong> Brussels based <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
who is responsible for liaison with Dublin on how issues should be played. <strong>The</strong><br />
instructions to <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representative and <strong>the</strong> Deputy tend to be broad<br />
but will highlight non-negotiable issues or issues on which Ireland needs<br />
movement in <strong>the</strong> negotiations. Senior <strong>of</strong>ficials attending <strong>the</strong> high level<br />
committees such as <strong>the</strong> Special Committee on Agriculture, <strong>the</strong> Economic and<br />
Finance Committee, <strong>the</strong> Employment Committees and <strong>the</strong> Social Protection<br />
Committee are all Dublin based and will get <strong>the</strong>ir briefing from within <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
departments and from <strong>the</strong>ir attaches in <strong>the</strong> Representation.
Within each department and across <strong>the</strong> system <strong>the</strong>re are well-established<br />
standard operating procedures on how briefing material is prepared for Council<br />
meetings. <strong>The</strong> central features <strong>of</strong> this are <strong>the</strong> centrality <strong>of</strong> departmental and<br />
divisional responsibility. <strong>The</strong> ‘lead’ department must prepare <strong>the</strong> brief for its<br />
Minister for each Council meeting in <strong>the</strong>ir sector and within each department <strong>the</strong><br />
‘lead’ section on a particular agenda item takes responsibility for preparing<br />
briefing material for that issue. In all departments responsibility for <strong>the</strong> coordination<br />
<strong>of</strong> briefing material rests with one section. <strong>The</strong> designated section is<br />
responsible for ensuring that <strong>the</strong> brief is comprehensive covering all agenda<br />
items. For example, <strong>the</strong> Co-ordination Section in <strong>the</strong> EU Division in Foreign<br />
Affairs deals with <strong>the</strong> draft agenda for <strong>the</strong> General Affairs Council (GAC) in <strong>the</strong><br />
first instance. <strong>The</strong> agenda is circulated with requests for briefing material from<br />
<strong>the</strong> relevant sections and <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> each agenda item becomes <strong>the</strong><br />
responsibility <strong>of</strong> a designated <strong>of</strong>ficer. That <strong>of</strong>ficer is responsible for consulting<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r sections within <strong>the</strong> department, <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation, <strong>Irish</strong><br />
embassies and o<strong>the</strong>r Government departments where appropriate. <strong>The</strong> section<br />
<strong>the</strong>n collates <strong>the</strong> briefing material and it prepares a ‘Steering note’ for <strong>the</strong><br />
meeting. <strong>The</strong> EU co-ordination section replicates this for meetings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Council beginning at least three weeks before such meetings. Unlike<br />
<strong>the</strong> GAC, briefing material from o<strong>the</strong>r government departments plays a more<br />
central role and <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach is responsible for <strong>the</strong> final<br />
briefing. Within all Government departments <strong>the</strong> processes for preparing briefing<br />
material are broadly similar and <strong>the</strong> frequency with which such processes are<br />
activated depend on <strong>the</strong> cycle <strong>of</strong> Council meetings in particular policy domains.<br />
<strong>The</strong> departments most involved in preparing briefs are Foreign Affairs,<br />
Agriculture, and Finance, Enterprise Trade and Employment and Justice given<br />
that <strong>the</strong>ir ministers are most actively involved in EU affairs. <strong>The</strong> EU agenda and<br />
timetable dictates <strong>the</strong> intensity <strong>of</strong> response needed from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system while<br />
an issue remains within <strong>the</strong> Council/ <strong>Europe</strong>an Parliament system. <strong>The</strong> focus at<br />
this stage is on <strong>the</strong> projection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> preferences into <strong>the</strong> Brussels arena.<br />
<strong>The</strong> writing and circulation <strong>of</strong> reports <strong>of</strong> meetings is a vital component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
procedures <strong>of</strong> managing EU issues as <strong>the</strong>y proceed through <strong>the</strong> policy process at<br />
EU level. Although <strong>the</strong>re are no formal guidelines about report writing, <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
well-established practices <strong>of</strong> reporting within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. Some<br />
departments are more systematic than o<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> reports. <strong>The</strong><br />
Foreign Ministry, Agriculture and Justice appear to have <strong>the</strong> most comprehensive
and systematic approach to report writing and to <strong>the</strong> circulation <strong>of</strong> such reports<br />
within <strong>the</strong> department. In o<strong>the</strong>r departments, individual <strong>of</strong>ficers appear to have<br />
more autonomy on report writing. In <strong>the</strong> Foreign ministry, <strong>of</strong>ficers attending<br />
meetings at all levels in <strong>the</strong> hierarchy prepare reports that provide an overview <strong>of</strong><br />
where <strong>the</strong> negotiations lie, <strong>the</strong> approaches <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r member states and likely<br />
future developments. COREPER reports are used to prepare for up-coming<br />
Council meetings. Officials from <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture attending<br />
Management Committees meetings send immediate reports <strong>of</strong> votes and policy<br />
developments to <strong>the</strong>ir Divisions and <strong>the</strong> EU Division. <strong>The</strong> circulation <strong>of</strong> reports<br />
within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system is dealt with below.<br />
Once a law is passed or a programme agreed at <strong>the</strong> negotiating stage, <strong>the</strong> focus<br />
changes to <strong>the</strong> reception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> output <strong>of</strong> EU decision making into <strong>the</strong> national<br />
system. <strong>The</strong> reception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU into <strong>the</strong> national brings an extra national set <strong>of</strong><br />
institutions and policy makers into sub-national levels <strong>of</strong> government and into <strong>the</strong><br />
wider society. <strong>The</strong>re are four different ways in which <strong>the</strong> EU requires a response<br />
from <strong>the</strong> national systems at <strong>the</strong> post-decision phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process. First, EC<br />
law must be transposed, implemented and enforced at national level. Second,<br />
<strong>Irish</strong> public bodies must comply with reporting and notification procedures and<br />
demands in areas such as public procurement, state aids and competition policy.<br />
Third, <strong>Irish</strong> public bodies must participate in processes <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>t policy co-ordination<br />
and peer review in areas such as justice, social provision, budgetary policy,<br />
health and education. <strong>The</strong> demands here range from engagement with peer<br />
review processes to <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> reports for submission to <strong>the</strong> Council or<br />
Commission. Fourth, <strong>Irish</strong> public and private bodies engage in seeking funding<br />
from programmes under <strong>the</strong> EU budget.<br />
<strong>The</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Core Executive during this phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policy process is<br />
substantial but more limited than <strong>the</strong> negotiating phase. <strong>The</strong> Core Executive is<br />
responsible for <strong>the</strong> transposition <strong>of</strong> EC law in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. Individual<br />
Government departments are responsible for implementation. <strong>The</strong> drafting <strong>of</strong><br />
Bills or statutory instruments is <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> Parliamentary<br />
Counsel, which is located in <strong>the</strong> Attorney general’s Office. <strong>The</strong> Office is organised<br />
into three groups and following instructions from a department, <strong>the</strong> relevant<br />
group drafts <strong>the</strong> Bill or SI. In order to streamline <strong>the</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> legislation,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Government has instituted a Legislation Committee with responsibility for<br />
managing <strong>the</strong> timing and processing <strong>of</strong> new legislation. EU business is not<br />
sufficiently integrated into <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Government Legislation Committee
and when <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> EC law requires primary legislation in Ireland<br />
this gives rise to delays. A Government Decision (2000) agreed that all ministers<br />
appearing in front <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Government’s Legislative Committee should inform <strong>the</strong><br />
chief whips <strong>of</strong> what EU legislation awaits transposition. This is designed to<br />
integrate EU and national legislative programmes. When Ireland fails to<br />
implement or incorrectly transposes EC law, <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs<br />
received notice <strong>of</strong> infringements reasoned opinions and notice <strong>of</strong> ECJ proceedings<br />
via <strong>the</strong> Representation in Brussels. It <strong>the</strong>n sends <strong>the</strong> relevant documentation to<br />
<strong>the</strong> AG’s Office, <strong>the</strong> department concerned and <strong>the</strong> Chief State Solicitors Office.<br />
Information Pathways<br />
Information is <strong>the</strong> lifeblood <strong>of</strong> any policy process and in an organisational<br />
resource that can be harvested or shared. Ireland’s administrative culture<br />
characterised by considerable autonomy for individual ministries could well<br />
militate against <strong>the</strong> sharing <strong>of</strong> information. However, <strong>the</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Brussels<br />
system require a degree <strong>of</strong> information sharing. In <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
formal pathways for <strong>the</strong> dissemination <strong>of</strong> information. <strong>The</strong> EU co-ordination<br />
section in Foreign Affairs is at <strong>the</strong> centre <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> formal information pathway for<br />
pillar one issues. Commission proposals and related papers are received by <strong>the</strong><br />
Documentation Centre and are <strong>the</strong>n distributed to <strong>the</strong> relevant sections within<br />
Foreign Affairs, o<strong>the</strong>r government Departments, and <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas. All formal<br />
communications from <strong>the</strong> Commission to Ireland come to this section via <strong>the</strong><br />
representation in Brussels. In addition, <strong>the</strong> EU co-ordination section in <strong>the</strong><br />
Foreign Ministry distributes reports <strong>of</strong> COREPER and Council meetings throughout<br />
<strong>the</strong> system. In 2002, new guidelines were established on <strong>the</strong> briefing material<br />
from Ireland’s embassies in <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r member states. All <strong>of</strong> this information is<br />
distributed widely throughout <strong>the</strong> system. <strong>The</strong> Foreign Ministry clearly adopts a<br />
policy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> maximum sharing and distribution <strong>of</strong> information. According to a<br />
Foreign Ministry <strong>of</strong>ficial, ‘<strong>the</strong> over-riding approach is to get <strong>the</strong> material out’<br />
(Interview 51, 12, March 2002) <strong>The</strong> Ministries’ Political Division is responsible for<br />
ga<strong>the</strong>ring and distributing information that arises within <strong>the</strong> Political and Security<br />
Committee. This material is by definition less widely distributed within <strong>the</strong><br />
system. <strong>The</strong> key actors involved are Foreign Affairs, Defence and <strong>the</strong> Army.<br />
<strong>The</strong> approach <strong>of</strong> domestic ministries to <strong>the</strong> sharing and distribution <strong>of</strong> information<br />
depends on <strong>the</strong> departmental culture, <strong>the</strong> sensitivity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issue and <strong>the</strong> degree<br />
to which a particular department wants to insulate particular issues from system<br />
wide discussion. In <strong>the</strong> home departments <strong>the</strong> most widespread practice is to
have one unit responsible for <strong>the</strong> circulation <strong>of</strong> information but in some cases<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are multiple information points, particularly if a department is responsible<br />
for more than one Council formation. <strong>The</strong>se units are responsible for <strong>the</strong> internal<br />
circulation <strong>of</strong> information within departments and <strong>the</strong> circulation lists can range in<br />
size from two to sixty. Most departments operate on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> lists based on<br />
<strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> information. Some departments have a tradition <strong>of</strong> very wide<br />
circulation <strong>of</strong> information within departments whereas o<strong>the</strong>rs tend to confine<br />
circulation to particular sectors. <strong>The</strong> former is more likely <strong>the</strong> case if a ministry<br />
has a clear sectoral mandate such as agriculture whereas in ministries with multisectoral<br />
responsibilities, information circulation is more likely to be restricted. In<br />
areas with a tradition <strong>of</strong> secrecy such as JHA or financial affairs, <strong>the</strong> circulation <strong>of</strong><br />
information is also more likely to be limited. In assessing <strong>the</strong> openness to<br />
sharing material, it was suggested that <strong>the</strong> decision to establish a committee on<br />
JHA was a good thing as it would force <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Justice, a traditionally<br />
secretive department to air issues outside <strong>the</strong> department. In contrast, <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Finance was perceived in <strong>the</strong> following terms, ‘Finance know what<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are doing but don’t share information’ and that <strong>the</strong> EU activities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Finance are not ‘subject to robust scrutiny’ (Interview 56,<br />
12.03.02). Thus although <strong>the</strong>re is considerable sharing <strong>of</strong> information, <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
also pockets <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system where information is harvested and not shared.<br />
While Foreign Affairs is formally responsible for <strong>the</strong> circulation <strong>of</strong> information,<br />
individual departments do not rely solely on it for <strong>the</strong>ir information needs. In fact<br />
in a survey <strong>of</strong> EU co-ordination units in 1999, only two domestic departments—<br />
<strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s department and <strong>the</strong> Marine cited Foreign Affairs as <strong>the</strong>ir most<br />
important source <strong>of</strong> information (Laffan, 2001). In addition, <strong>the</strong> Attorney<br />
General’s Office also cited Foreign Affairs as <strong>the</strong> main source <strong>of</strong> information. For<br />
all o<strong>the</strong>r departments, <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>of</strong>ficials in Brussels were <strong>the</strong> primary source <strong>of</strong><br />
information on EU developments. This underlines <strong>the</strong> crucial vertical link between<br />
<strong>the</strong> home departments and <strong>the</strong>ir people in Brussels. Foreign Affairs was <strong>the</strong><br />
second most important source <strong>of</strong> information for all departments with <strong>the</strong><br />
exception <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, which ranked it in fourth place behind <strong>the</strong> Council<br />
Secretariat and <strong>the</strong> Commission.<br />
Co-ordination<br />
<strong>The</strong> key structures designed to co-ordinate Ireland’s <strong>Europe</strong>an policy are set out<br />
in Section II above. <strong>The</strong>se are <strong>the</strong> core-core —Foreign Affairs, Taoiseach’s<br />
Department and Finance that form <strong>the</strong> innermost core <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system. All
departments have co-ordination units and some have internal <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs<br />
Committees reporting to <strong>the</strong> departmental Management Committee. As outlined<br />
in section II, <strong>the</strong>re is a system <strong>of</strong> inter-departmental committees that has been<br />
subject to considerable flux since membership but is now becoming more stable<br />
and institutionalised. Overall responsibility for day-to-day co-ordination lies with<br />
<strong>the</strong> Foreign Ministry. In its 1998 Strategy Statement, Foreign Affairs stated its<br />
ambition to develop ‘with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> administration as a whole, a strategic, coordinated<br />
and coherent response to <strong>the</strong> protection and promotion <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s<br />
interests in <strong>the</strong> EU’ (Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs 1998). A series <strong>of</strong> actions<br />
relating to this objective were identified:<br />
• to stimulate maximum awareness in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> administrative system <strong>of</strong><br />
EU issues and work to ensure that <strong>the</strong>se receive appropriate priority;<br />
• to develop in co-ordination with o<strong>the</strong>r departments detailed strategies<br />
for <strong>the</strong> promotion and protection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> interests;<br />
• To keep under active review and seek to improve as necessary <strong>the</strong><br />
mechanisms for EU-co-ordination within <strong>the</strong> department and between<br />
departments. (Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, 1998, 21).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se aspirations identify Foreign Affairs as advocates <strong>of</strong> EU awareness in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Irish</strong> system and as joint custodians <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s management <strong>of</strong> EU business. <strong>The</strong><br />
objective is to ensure that EU matters receive adequate prioritisation within <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Irish</strong> system, that <strong>the</strong> system develops detailed strategies and that co-ordination<br />
mechanisms are reviewed periodically. <strong>The</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs to achieve<br />
<strong>the</strong>se aims is, however, limited.<br />
National Policy styles differ in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ambition to co-ordinate and manage<br />
<strong>the</strong> interaction with Brussels. Two styles predominate - containment and<br />
internalisation. <strong>The</strong> containment model attempts to adopt a gatekeeper role<br />
between <strong>the</strong> EU and <strong>the</strong> domestic. This style involves horizontal management <strong>of</strong><br />
such issues as <strong>the</strong> appropriate legal basis, inter-institutional relations, comitology<br />
committees and so on. <strong>The</strong> national systems have a central focal point that places<br />
a premium on control and co-ordination. <strong>The</strong> arch type states that fall into this<br />
category are <strong>the</strong> UK, France and Denmark. <strong>The</strong> internalisation style is<br />
characterised by <strong>the</strong> dominance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lead department, little formal tracking <strong>of</strong><br />
interaction with Brussels and less formal systems <strong>of</strong> co-ordination. Germany, <strong>the</strong><br />
Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands, Luxembourg and Ireland fall into this category.
<strong>The</strong> co-ordination ambition depends on <strong>the</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issue on <strong>the</strong> Brussels<br />
agenda, <strong>the</strong> phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> policy process and <strong>the</strong> national style in managing EU<br />
business. A fourfold distinction between routine sectoral policy making, major<br />
policy shaping decisions within sectors, cross-sectoral issues and <strong>the</strong> big bargains<br />
is apposite. Departments can handle <strong>the</strong> routine business <strong>of</strong> dealing with<br />
Brussels within clearly defined sectoral areas without engaging in too much interdepartmental<br />
consultation ad co-ordination. In addition, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system gives<br />
individual departments considerable autonomy within <strong>the</strong>ir own sectors even on<br />
<strong>the</strong> major shaping issues provided <strong>the</strong> wider system is kept informed. This is<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten a problematic category in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. For example, <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Finance is <strong>the</strong> lead department on taxation but an issue like energy tax<br />
involves Finance, Environment and Public Enterprise. One <strong>of</strong>ficial remarked that<br />
‘Finance may have a problem, but <strong>the</strong>y talk to DFA instead <strong>of</strong> Public Enterprise,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore, <strong>the</strong>y are not getting a co-ordinated view’ (Interview 56, 12.02.02).<br />
Water policy was ano<strong>the</strong>r area where it was felt that <strong>the</strong> co-ordinating systems<br />
were not sufficient. For <strong>the</strong> latter two categories, processes that go beyond<br />
consultation are required and here <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system has put in place structures<br />
and processes to ensure co-ordination. <strong>The</strong> co-ordination ambition in Ireland<br />
could be defined as a high level <strong>of</strong> co-ordination on selected issues that are<br />
accorded domestic priority.<br />
<strong>The</strong> member states can achieve <strong>the</strong>ir co-ordination ambitions in a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
ways. Bartlett and Ghoshal <strong>of</strong>fer a threefold categorisation <strong>of</strong> co-ordination<br />
styles— centralisation, formalisation and socialisation (Bartlett and Ghoshal,<br />
1989, 158-66). All organisations deploy a mix <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> three processes <strong>of</strong> coordination<br />
but one approach will usually dominate. A highly centralised system<br />
involves ‘top down’ processes <strong>of</strong> co-ordination with issues pushed up <strong>the</strong><br />
hierarchy for deliberation, arbitration, resolution and strategic analysis. A highly<br />
formalised system would be procedurally strong with extensive rules and<br />
guidelines. A system that rests on socialisation relies on <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong><br />
common understandings and norms. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system utilises all three<br />
approaches but <strong>the</strong> dominant mode <strong>of</strong> co-ordination on a day to day and week to<br />
week basis is undoubtedly socialisation.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> key national priorities, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system engages in ‘selective<br />
centralisation’ (Kassim 2002). <strong>The</strong> system will channel political and<br />
administrative resources on <strong>the</strong> big issues. Three examples illustrate <strong>the</strong> capacity<br />
<strong>of</strong> selective centralisation. In 1983 Ireland had a major problem with
Commission proposals on <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> a milk super-levy. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
government and administration effectively transformed itself into a task force to<br />
ensure that <strong>the</strong> outcome was not too detrimental to <strong>Irish</strong> interests. <strong>The</strong> <strong>the</strong>n<br />
Taoiseach, Dr. Garrett FitzGerald, toured all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> capitals <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> member states<br />
prior to <strong>the</strong> A<strong>the</strong>ns <strong>Europe</strong>an Council, December 1983. This was augmented by<br />
a number <strong>of</strong> bilateral visits by <strong>the</strong> Agricultural Minister. <strong>The</strong> Ministers’ <strong>of</strong> Foreign<br />
Affairs and Finance attended Joint Councils on <strong>the</strong> issue. Special briefing material<br />
on <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> this issue to Ireland was prepared and circulated to all<br />
member states and EU institutions. <strong>The</strong>re was thus a high level <strong>of</strong> political<br />
prioritisation and commitment to <strong>the</strong> issue. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Communities<br />
Committee met frequently on <strong>the</strong> superlevy and an ad hoc policy group was<br />
established to service <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> senior civil servants and political <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
holders.<br />
Procedures and processes for managing <strong>the</strong> 1996 <strong>Irish</strong> Presidency were highly<br />
centralised and formalised. In preparation for <strong>the</strong> running <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Presidency, <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Irish</strong> system deployed a number <strong>of</strong> very flexible but effective tools <strong>of</strong> coordination<br />
such as intensive ministerial and Cabinet involvement,<br />
interdepartmental Committees, particularly <strong>the</strong> Ministers and Secretaries Group,<br />
departmental liaison <strong>of</strong>ficers, management and policy groups, <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong><br />
procedural manuals and delegation to <strong>the</strong> Permanent representation (Humphreys<br />
1997). <strong>The</strong> successful 1996 presidency led <strong>the</strong> Committee for Public<br />
Management research to commission a study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1996 Presidency to identify<br />
what management lessons could be gleaned for <strong>the</strong> future management <strong>of</strong> crosscutting<br />
issues in <strong>Irish</strong> central government (Humphreys, 1997).<br />
<strong>The</strong> 1997-1999 Agenda 2000 negotiations <strong>of</strong>fer a third example <strong>of</strong> selective<br />
centralisation in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. An Inter-departmental Agenda 2000 Group<br />
established in 1997 was <strong>the</strong> main vehicle for <strong>the</strong> development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
approach to <strong>the</strong> negotiations. <strong>The</strong> Ministers and Secretaries Group met eight<br />
times in 1998 on <strong>the</strong> issue. <strong>The</strong>re was daily contact between <strong>the</strong> two Finance<br />
attachés in Brussels, <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representative and Dublin-based <strong>of</strong>ficials.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs co-ordinated briefing for COREPER and Council<br />
meetings on <strong>the</strong>se negotiations with input from Agriculture and Finance. A<br />
practice developed whereby written briefs for all EU meetings on Agenda 2000<br />
were produced. Excellent links between Dublin and <strong>the</strong> Representation led to a<br />
high level <strong>of</strong> coherence in <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> negotiating position.<br />
Throughout <strong>the</strong> negotiations, <strong>the</strong>re was extensive monitoring <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> positions <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r member states and <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach engaged in a very intensive round <strong>of</strong><br />
bilateral meetings with his counterparts in o<strong>the</strong>r member states. <strong>The</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> final phase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> negotiations was in <strong>the</strong> hands <strong>of</strong> an Expert<br />
Technical Group that consisted <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach and <strong>of</strong>ficials from for<br />
departments—Foreign Affairs Finance, Agriculture, Enterprise, Trade and<br />
Employment. This was unusual in that is consisted <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Government’s most<br />
senior member and four line <strong>of</strong>ficials from <strong>the</strong> relevant ministries. Essentially,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Taoiseach brought toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> four most informed <strong>of</strong>ficials on <strong>the</strong> Agenda<br />
2000 negotiations and met with <strong>the</strong>m seven times between January and March<br />
1999 when <strong>the</strong> negotiations concluded in Berlin.<br />
<strong>The</strong> issues that are dealt with on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> selective centralisation are <strong>the</strong> most<br />
salient issues but are limited in number. Co-ordination in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system relies<br />
heavily on mutual adjustment and informal processes <strong>of</strong> interaction across<br />
departments. In addition to <strong>the</strong> system based around <strong>the</strong> EU Division in <strong>the</strong><br />
Foreign Ministry, a number <strong>of</strong> additional poles <strong>of</strong> co-ordination have emerged.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se are a hub involving <strong>the</strong> Political Division in Foreign Affairs, <strong>the</strong> Defence<br />
Ministry and <strong>the</strong> General Staff <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Army in relation to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Security<br />
and Defence Policy (ESDP). <strong>The</strong> development <strong>of</strong> ESDP brought <strong>the</strong> Defence<br />
Ministry and <strong>the</strong> Army into <strong>the</strong> EU arena. Given <strong>the</strong> political sensitivity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
ESDP in Ireland and its evolving nature, <strong>the</strong> three actors involved in this pole <strong>of</strong><br />
co-ordination work extremely closely toge<strong>the</strong>r, share information and interact on<br />
a continuous basis with <strong>the</strong> CFSP and ESDP personnel in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Representation.<br />
A second pole <strong>of</strong> co-ordination is evident <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> Justice and <strong>Home</strong> Affairs. A<br />
government decision established an interdepartmental JHA committee serviced by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s department, chaired by a senior <strong>of</strong>ficial from <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Justice, and attended by <strong>the</strong> Foreign Ministry, and <strong>the</strong> Attorney General’s Office.<br />
This committee meets before JHA Councils. Major cross-cutting environmental<br />
issues are managed within <strong>the</strong> Environmental Network <strong>of</strong> Government<br />
Departments, which meets at Assistant Secretary level. However, <strong>the</strong>re are a lot<br />
<strong>of</strong> environmental issues that do not fall within its remit. <strong>The</strong> processes<br />
associated with <strong>the</strong> open method <strong>of</strong> co-ordination could well lead to <strong>the</strong><br />
development <strong>of</strong> additional poles <strong>of</strong> co-ordination.
SECTION IV - THE AGENTS<br />
Participation in <strong>the</strong> activities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union poses challenges to those<br />
who work in national civil services. In order to live with <strong>the</strong> Brussels system,<br />
states need a cadre <strong>of</strong> EU specialists who can combine technical/sectoral<br />
expertise with <strong>Europe</strong>an expertise. <strong>Europe</strong>an expertise rests on deep knowledge<br />
<strong>of</strong> how <strong>the</strong> EU system works, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legal framework and <strong>the</strong> personal skills to<br />
work in a mutli-national and multi-cultural environment. It also rests on <strong>the</strong><br />
stamina to make <strong>the</strong> early flights to Brussels, work effectively in meetings and<br />
analyse <strong>the</strong> discussion and direction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> negotiations. <strong>The</strong> core <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU cadre<br />
in any member state can be found among those <strong>of</strong>ficials for whom EU business<br />
takes up more than 50 per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir time. <strong>The</strong>y gain <strong>the</strong>ir initial experience at<br />
working party level and may later find <strong>the</strong>mselves at more senior levels with<br />
substantial EU responsibilities. <strong>The</strong> most experienced <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m spend time in <strong>the</strong><br />
Representation Centre or one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU institutions. Extensive exposure to<br />
Brussels brings <strong>the</strong> added bonus <strong>of</strong> contacts with counterparts in o<strong>the</strong>r member<br />
states or in Brussels. This cadre acts as ‘boundary managers’ between <strong>the</strong><br />
national and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an. <strong>The</strong>y develop and transmit national preferences in <strong>the</strong><br />
course <strong>of</strong> EU negotiations and later filter Brussels outcomes back into <strong>the</strong><br />
national. <strong>The</strong>y mediate between <strong>the</strong> domestic system <strong>of</strong> public policy making and<br />
<strong>the</strong> EU.<br />
Ireland’s EU cadre can be found in Foreign Affairs, Enterprise, Trade and<br />
Employment, Agriculture, Finance and Justice. In all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r departments,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are significant EU related posts but <strong>the</strong>se are few in number. <strong>The</strong> small size<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU cadre relative to <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> civil service is striking. Internal civil<br />
service estimates prepared in 1980 concluded that 151 (7 per cent) <strong>of</strong>ficials at AP<br />
level upwards spent <strong>the</strong> greater part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir time on EU related matters, and a<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r 111 (5 per cent) <strong>of</strong>ficials had significant EU involvement. <strong>The</strong> total<br />
number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials at this level was 2,217 (Internal Note, September 1980). Thus<br />
EU business was central to <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> about 12 per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> civil servants.<br />
An incomplete estimate prepared in 2002, that analysed those involved at Higher<br />
Executive Officer (HEO) level or above, suggests that <strong>the</strong> numbers have increased<br />
but not dramatically. Only three departments, Foreign Affairs, Enterprise, Trade<br />
and Employment and Agriculture had over 50 staff working on <strong>Europe</strong> for more<br />
than 50 per cent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir time. In many departments, <strong>the</strong> number was five or<br />
less. Ireland’s EU cadre is relatively small in size.
<strong>Irish</strong> administrative culture influences how EU business is managed. As<br />
mentioned in Section I, <strong>the</strong> cult <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> generalist is very strong in <strong>Irish</strong><br />
administrative culture. <strong>Irish</strong> civil servants are expected to handle any post that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are placed in and to move to radically different work in <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
careers. It is thus exceptional in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system that an <strong>of</strong>ficial would work only<br />
on EU matters for <strong>the</strong>ir entire careers. That said <strong>the</strong>re are a small number <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials whose careers are largely EU related in <strong>the</strong> diplomatic service and in <strong>the</strong><br />
key EU ministries. <strong>The</strong>se are <strong>of</strong>ficials who might have served on high level EU<br />
committees for long periods and because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir EU knowledge become a key<br />
resource in <strong>the</strong> system. Although <strong>the</strong>y constitute an essential resource in <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Irish</strong> system, <strong>the</strong> EU cadre may not be adequately recognised. One senior <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
concluded that :<br />
Within <strong>the</strong> system, <strong>the</strong>re is hardly any incentive to be a ‘Brussels insider’,<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> finance or family commitments. <strong>The</strong>re is no one central system<br />
to bring this about. People don’t want to be pigeonholed in that way … <strong>the</strong><br />
weighting given in civil service panels to such skills might not be great’<br />
(Interview 53, 12.02. 02).<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is no specially trained EU cadre in <strong>the</strong> system or no EU related fast track.<br />
Training is ad hoc throughout <strong>the</strong> system. In 1974, <strong>the</strong>re was extensive training<br />
for <strong>the</strong> first <strong>Irish</strong> Presidency, which included considerable exposure, to how <strong>the</strong><br />
EU worked. <strong>The</strong> training effort for subsequent Presidencies was geared more<br />
towards meeting management as it was felt that EU knowledge in <strong>the</strong> system was<br />
adequate. Lectures on <strong>the</strong> EU formed part <strong>of</strong> induction programmes for young<br />
diplomatic staff and administrative <strong>of</strong>ficers. Officials assigned to <strong>the</strong><br />
Representation in Brussels would not receive training before leaving for Brussels<br />
and would not shadow <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> responsibility before taking up <strong>the</strong>ir new<br />
positions. Language training within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system is also weak. Consequently<br />
EU expertise is build up on <strong>the</strong> job<br />
<strong>The</strong> manner in which <strong>Irish</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials do <strong>the</strong>ir homework for negotiations in Brussels<br />
and conduct negotiations is influenced by a number <strong>of</strong> factors. Size matters. <strong>The</strong><br />
relatively small size <strong>of</strong> central government, coupled with <strong>the</strong> small size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
country, and <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>Irish</strong> delegations tend to be smaller than those <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
member states all influence perceptions <strong>of</strong> how <strong>the</strong> Brussels game should be<br />
played. <strong>Irish</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials have an acute sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> constraints <strong>of</strong> size. <strong>Irish</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials work on <strong>the</strong> basis that as a small state; Ireland has a limited negotiating
margin and should use that margin wisely. One interviewee for this study argued<br />
that ‘Ireland has fewer guns, and not many bullets so it must pick its fights<br />
carefully’ (Laffan 2001). In 1985, <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>n Taoiseach, Garrett FitzGerald,<br />
identified Ireland’s negotiating strategy in <strong>the</strong> following terms:<br />
As a small country we must ensure that we not create problems for our<br />
partners save in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> issues that are <strong>of</strong> vital importance to us. Only<br />
when our case is strong—so overwhelmingly strong that in logic o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
should objectively accept it. Should we press our interests in a way that<br />
can create problems for o<strong>the</strong>r people (Fitzgerald 1985)<br />
This approach was confirmed by an <strong>of</strong>ficial who suggested that in negotiations<br />
<strong>Irish</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials would not raise difficulties unless <strong>the</strong>y have a real problem<br />
(Interview 75, 29.05.02).<br />
<strong>Irish</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials try to avoid isolation in negotiations and are largely successful. In<br />
<strong>the</strong> five years between 1996 and 2000 Ireland abstained in 1 vote and registered<br />
a negative vote 7 times (3 per cent). This was out <strong>of</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> 75 abstentions and<br />
206 votes cast in <strong>the</strong> Council. Ireland, Austria, Finland and Luxembourg are<br />
among <strong>the</strong> member states that find <strong>the</strong>mselves on <strong>the</strong> losing side <strong>of</strong> votes least<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten in <strong>the</strong> Council (Peterson and Shackleton, 2002, 64). One interviewee for<br />
<strong>the</strong> study concluded that ‘Very rarely are we without a negotiating margin and<br />
without room for manoeuvre’ (Interview 55, 07.03.02). In <strong>the</strong> end <strong>the</strong> minister<br />
will decide if he/she wants to go out on a limb but would be told ‘Minister, you are<br />
totally isolated on this and a lot <strong>of</strong> people will come down heavily on you in<br />
Council’ (Interview 55, 07.03.02). <strong>The</strong> aim is to avoid this if at all possible and to<br />
negotiate away problems.<br />
<strong>The</strong> approach to negotiations is to seek to shape or re-shape <strong>the</strong> five or six<br />
problem areas in any proposal for Ireland. This stems from Ireland’s size, limited<br />
human resources and pragmatic culture. All proposals are scanned and assessed<br />
in terms <strong>of</strong> problems. <strong>The</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> problems is identified on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong><br />
an informal checklist <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> kinds <strong>of</strong> issues that need watching. Those that<br />
surfaced most frequently in interviews were:<br />
• existing national law or policy;<br />
• departmental policy;<br />
• likely impact on <strong>the</strong> public purse ei<strong>the</strong>r in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cost to <strong>the</strong> national<br />
budget or erosion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tax base,
• where relevant constitutional licence;<br />
• views and concerns <strong>of</strong> relevant interests;<br />
• administrative capacity to implement (Laffan, 2001)<br />
<strong>The</strong> strategy was likened to ‘shooting ducks in <strong>the</strong> arcade’ by one interviewee.<br />
<strong>The</strong> problem solving approach to negotiations means that <strong>Irish</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials tend to<br />
intervene on specific issues and would have little to say on <strong>the</strong> broad thrust <strong>of</strong><br />
policy. This approach was identified in <strong>the</strong> following terms:<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> tend to go for short interventions in <strong>the</strong> Council. Our negotiating<br />
culture in Brussels—we pride ourselves on being short and to <strong>the</strong> point.<br />
We have to decide tactically when we should intervene. It is important not<br />
to waste your capital (Interview 66, 09.04.02).<br />
When looking for solutions, <strong>Irish</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials will seek to deal with problems at <strong>the</strong><br />
lowest possible level and will rely on a drafting solution in <strong>the</strong> first instance. <strong>The</strong><br />
logic <strong>of</strong> this approach is that issues become more politicised and thus more<br />
difficult to solve as you move up <strong>the</strong> hierarchy. Links are maintained with<br />
colleagues in o<strong>the</strong>r member states but on a less systematic basis than in some<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r administrations. Given <strong>the</strong> changes in <strong>the</strong> EU, more attention is again being<br />
paid to bilateral contacts at all levels in <strong>the</strong> system. Tactical ra<strong>the</strong>r than strategic<br />
thinking is prevalent in Ireland on EU matters. Considerable attention is paid to<br />
<strong>the</strong> negotiating positions <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r member states.<br />
Personalism is a dominant cultural value in Ireland arising from late urbanisation<br />
and <strong>the</strong> small size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country. Civil servants working on EU matters meet<br />
frequently in Brussels and Dublin and have an ease <strong>of</strong> contact. Officials<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> system can easily identify <strong>the</strong> necessary contacts in o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
departments. Hayes, writing in 1984 concluded that <strong>the</strong> high degree <strong>of</strong><br />
interdepartmental contact owed much to <strong>the</strong> small, personal, centralised nature<br />
<strong>of</strong> Ireland’s central administration (Hayes 1984). <strong>The</strong> telephone and to a lesser<br />
extent e-mail are <strong>the</strong> main channels <strong>of</strong> informal contact. While hierarchy matters,<br />
<strong>the</strong> need to get business done means that <strong>the</strong>re is a facility to meet across levels<br />
that is more difficult in more formal and hierarchical continental systems. <strong>The</strong><br />
intimacy <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system can be gleaned from <strong>the</strong> fact that when a particular<br />
set <strong>of</strong> negotiations is mentioned, <strong>the</strong> names <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> four or five relevant <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />
are <strong>of</strong>fered immediately.
<strong>The</strong>re are several well-entrenched norms in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system that influence how<br />
EU issues are handled. First, is <strong>the</strong> norm that <strong>Irish</strong> delegations should ‘sing from<br />
<strong>the</strong> same hymn-sheet’ and should not fight interdepartmental battles in Brussels.<br />
Delegations would not engage in conflict in front <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r delegations. Second, is<br />
a norm <strong>of</strong> sharing information about developments in key negotiations. However,<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are pockets <strong>of</strong> secrecy left where departments would not share information<br />
that <strong>the</strong>y believed was <strong>of</strong> primary interest to <strong>the</strong>mselves. <strong>The</strong>re, is a high level <strong>of</strong><br />
collegiality within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system and a high level <strong>of</strong> trust between <strong>of</strong>ficials from<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r departments. This is accompanied by an understanding <strong>of</strong> different<br />
departmental perspectives and styles. A high level <strong>of</strong> trust is particularly<br />
prevalent among <strong>the</strong> EU cadre who see <strong>the</strong>mselves fighting for ‘Ireland Inc’. <strong>The</strong><br />
ability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system to address problems is highlighted in <strong>the</strong> following quote<br />
from a Foreign Ministry <strong>of</strong>ficial, ‘ When we have real problems, we can get<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r and solve <strong>the</strong>m. <strong>The</strong>re is a great degree <strong>of</strong> trust in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system’<br />
(Interview 58, 25.03.02). Fourth, is <strong>the</strong> norm that Ireland should be as<br />
communautaire as possible within <strong>the</strong> limits <strong>of</strong> particular negotiations. As stated<br />
above, <strong>Irish</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials/politicians do not oppose for <strong>the</strong> sake <strong>of</strong> opposing. That said,<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> would aim to be constructive players in <strong>the</strong> EU system ra<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
deploy <strong>the</strong> rhetoric <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an project. Protecting domestic space is an<br />
important goal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> participants in <strong>the</strong> EU arena. This stems from Ireland’s<br />
relative under-development until <strong>the</strong> 1990s, from its common law tradition, and<br />
from <strong>the</strong> character <strong>of</strong> its political economy.<br />
SECTION V: NICE AS A CRITICAL JUNCTURE<br />
Ireland had a smooth political transition to membership. An overwhelming ‘yes’<br />
vote in 1972 and <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> serious splits on <strong>Europe</strong> in <strong>Irish</strong> political parties<br />
enabled successive <strong>Irish</strong> governments and its public administration to promote<br />
<strong>Irish</strong> preferences in <strong>the</strong> EU system unfettered by a hostile public at home.<br />
Although <strong>the</strong>re were differences on particular <strong>Europe</strong>an issues, <strong>the</strong>re was a broad<br />
cross-party consensus on <strong>Europe</strong> in Ireland and a reasonable fit between <strong>the</strong><br />
Union’s policy range and <strong>Irish</strong> preferences. Official Ireland had little difficulty in<br />
projecting a <strong>Europe</strong>an identity for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> State and its people. Inevitably <strong>the</strong>re<br />
were contentious issues for Ireland and difficult negotiations but whenever<br />
Ireland sought assistance it got it. Ireland’s EU pr<strong>of</strong>ile was that <strong>of</strong> a relatively<br />
small communautaire state, a major net beneficiary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU budget,
protectionist on agriculture, poor relative to <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> member states<br />
and an outlier on <strong>Europe</strong>an security (Laffan 2001).<br />
In <strong>the</strong> latter half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1990s, Ireland faced a number <strong>of</strong> very tough negotiations<br />
with <strong>the</strong> EU on <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> beef regime, on state aids and corporation<br />
tax, on environmental policy and in relation to <strong>the</strong> evolving <strong>Europe</strong>an Defence<br />
and Security Policy. In addition, very high levels <strong>of</strong> economic growth in this<br />
period altered Ireland’s relative wealth position in <strong>the</strong> Union and Ireland became<br />
a competitor for jobs and investment. <strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> economic catch-up was a very<br />
important motivating factor for <strong>Irish</strong> policy makers in <strong>the</strong> Union. When that was<br />
broadly achieved, it was more difficult to chart Ireland’s engagement in <strong>the</strong> Union<br />
and more difficult to assess what kind <strong>of</strong> Union suited a changing Ireland. <strong>The</strong><br />
road-map was no longer so clear for those responsible for charting Ireland’s<br />
position in <strong>the</strong> Union. Once <strong>the</strong> Agenda 2000 negotiations were concluded in<br />
March 1999 and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> National Development Plan (2000 - 2006) submitted to<br />
Brussels, Ireland’s <strong>Europe</strong>an policy began to lose its coherence.<br />
A series <strong>of</strong> speeches by Government Ministers in summer 2000 reflected<br />
uncertainty about Ireland’s place in <strong>Europe</strong> and <strong>the</strong> relative importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
to Ireland. In July 2000, <strong>the</strong> Tánaiste, Mary Harney, in an address to <strong>the</strong><br />
American Bar Association endorsed a neo-liberal <strong>Europe</strong> and ended by saying that<br />
she believed in ‘a <strong>Europe</strong> <strong>of</strong> independent states, not a United States <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>’<br />
(Harney 2000). <strong>The</strong> key to <strong>the</strong> minister’s speech was her unease about <strong>the</strong><br />
prospect that ‘key economic decisions being taken in Brussels level’ and <strong>the</strong><br />
possibility that Ireland would be subject to excessive regulation (Harney 2000).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se sentiments were re-echoed in an <strong>Irish</strong> Times article in September 2000<br />
when she again used language reminiscent <strong>of</strong> De Gaulle and Margaret Thatcher.<br />
<strong>The</strong> speech will be remembered largely because <strong>the</strong> Minister suggested that<br />
Ireland was nearer to Boston ra<strong>the</strong>r Berlin. Ano<strong>the</strong>r Minister, Síle De Valera,<br />
Minister for Arts, Culture and <strong>the</strong> Gaeltacht delivered, in Boston College, in<br />
September 2000, <strong>the</strong> most Euro-sceptical speech ever delivered by an <strong>Irish</strong><br />
minister. She said that ‘directives and regulations agreed in Brussels can <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
seriously impinge on or identity, culture and traditions’. She was not specific<br />
regarding <strong>the</strong> directives she had in mind and <strong>of</strong>fered no concrete evidence to<br />
support her claim. In <strong>the</strong> speech, she called for a more vigilant, questioning<br />
attitude towards <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union and more diligence in protecting <strong>Irish</strong><br />
interests’ (De Valera, 18 September 2000). Nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se speeches would<br />
have been made in <strong>the</strong> period <strong>of</strong> substantial budgetary transfers from Brussels.
One senior Government advisor suggested that ‘we became overconfident. <strong>The</strong><br />
notion that <strong>the</strong> US is a substitute is not tenable’ (Interview 51, 28.02.02).<br />
A very public spat followed <strong>the</strong>se ministerial speeches between <strong>the</strong> Minister for<br />
Finance and <strong>the</strong> EU Commission concerning <strong>the</strong> Broad Economic Guidelines in<br />
2001. <strong>The</strong> Commission advised <strong>the</strong> ECOFIN to issue Ireland with a formal<br />
recommendation on its budgetary policy, <strong>the</strong> first country to receive this. Given<br />
Ireland’s strong economic performance at <strong>the</strong> time and <strong>the</strong> healthy state <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
public finances, <strong>the</strong> Commission’s strategy, which had some merit, was portrayed<br />
in Ireland and Brussels interfering in <strong>Irish</strong> domestic policy and picking a fight with<br />
a small member state. Views about <strong>the</strong> conflict with <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Commission<br />
were divided. <strong>The</strong>re were those who were concerned about <strong>the</strong> tone <strong>of</strong><br />
engagement and <strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> standing within <strong>the</strong> system. O<strong>the</strong>rs were concerned<br />
that <strong>the</strong> Finance ministry did not appear to have <strong>the</strong> networks and political<br />
contacts across <strong>Europe</strong> to manage <strong>the</strong> conflict. In any event, <strong>the</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong><br />
discord within <strong>the</strong> Cabinet and <strong>the</strong> spat with <strong>the</strong> Commission set <strong>the</strong> tone <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
referendum. <strong>The</strong> defeat <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nice referendum in June 2001 was a major shock<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Government, <strong>the</strong> main opposition parties, and <strong>the</strong> key economic interest<br />
groups, all <strong>of</strong> whom had promoted a ‘yes’ vote. Given <strong>the</strong> successful ratification <strong>of</strong><br />
four previous EU treaties, <strong>the</strong> ‘no’ was unexpected. It left Ireland’s <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
policy adrift and <strong>the</strong> Government with a major external and domestic challenge.<br />
<strong>The</strong> impact at <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> central Government was to ratchet EU issues up <strong>the</strong><br />
political and administrative agenda. <strong>The</strong>re was considerable soul searching in<br />
Government and in <strong>the</strong> administration on how to respond to <strong>the</strong> crisis. Once<br />
senior <strong>of</strong>ficial claimed that:<br />
<strong>The</strong> whole way we were conducting our business in <strong>Europe</strong> was uncertain<br />
and in transition. <strong>The</strong>re is a need to go into a new mode, organise<br />
accordingly and change mindset. Departments don’t always see where<br />
<strong>the</strong>y fit into <strong>the</strong> bigger picture. We have gone a bit tired. Losing <strong>the</strong><br />
referendum has brought it all into focus. (Interview 49, 12.02.02).<br />
A sense <strong>of</strong> crisis was evident among all those interviewed for this research. One<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficial suggested that ‘it was quite frightening how <strong>the</strong> system has lost its whole<br />
sense <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong> and how depressed people are working in <strong>Europe</strong>an affairs’<br />
(Interview, 50, 27.02.02) Ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong>ficial suggested that ‘<strong>The</strong>re is a certain<br />
wariness about us. Member states are worried about what positions we might
take. It is only an undercurrent at <strong>the</strong> moment but if we were to vote No again, it<br />
would be damaging to us (Interview 57, 15.03.02).<br />
Politically, <strong>the</strong> Government established a National Forum on <strong>Europe</strong> to generate a<br />
debate on Ireland’s place in <strong>the</strong> Union. <strong>The</strong>re was widespread acceptance that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re was a gap between those who were involved in Ireland’s <strong>Europe</strong>an policy<br />
and <strong>the</strong> wider public and that <strong>the</strong> public had not been engaged in <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
issues. <strong>The</strong> Forum brings toge<strong>the</strong>r politicians from <strong>the</strong> pro-and anti- EU sides and<br />
has an observer pillar drawn from civil society. Within <strong>the</strong> administration, a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> responses were evident. First, in <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs<br />
<strong>the</strong> Economic Section was re-named <strong>the</strong> EU Section and <strong>the</strong>re were a number <strong>of</strong><br />
changes in personnel. <strong>The</strong> new Director-General <strong>of</strong> that section was one <strong>of</strong><br />
Ireland’s most experienced EU specialists with strong links with EU institutions<br />
and domestic departments. <strong>The</strong>re were a number <strong>of</strong> organisational changes in<br />
<strong>the</strong> department and new guidelines were issued for <strong>Irish</strong> embassies concerning<br />
<strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> intelligence <strong>the</strong>y should focus on. A new Permanent Representative<br />
was appointed who in turn introduced a number <strong>of</strong> new processes into <strong>the</strong><br />
Representation. <strong>The</strong> Department became more central to <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
business given <strong>the</strong> need for a second referendum and <strong>the</strong> consequences for<br />
Ireland’s standing in <strong>the</strong> EU and among <strong>the</strong> candidate countries. Toge<strong>the</strong>r with<br />
<strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach, <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs has been<br />
central to managing <strong>the</strong> post-Nice environment.<br />
Second, all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> political and interdepartmental mechanisms for dealing with <strong>the</strong><br />
Union became more active. <strong>The</strong> Cabinet sub-committee, a committee that waxed<br />
and waned since 1973 began to meet regularly and deal with work sent to it by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Senior Officials Group. <strong>The</strong> tempo <strong>of</strong> work undertaken by <strong>the</strong> Senior Officials<br />
Group (SOG) was greatly enhanced. <strong>The</strong> Group represents <strong>the</strong> core <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
cadre in that all members have substantial EU responsibilities and are sent by<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir departments to influence future strategy. This Group began to assume<br />
responsibility within <strong>the</strong> domestic system for <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> priorities on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Union and for plotting Ireland’s future position in <strong>the</strong> Union. One result <strong>of</strong><br />
this was <strong>the</strong> publication <strong>of</strong> a document in April 2002 on Ireland and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Union: Identifying Priorities and Pursuing Goals (Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach,<br />
2002). <strong>The</strong> report identifies <strong>the</strong> need to engage fully in <strong>the</strong> complex decision<br />
making processes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU by:
• Cultivating ever better relations with our partners in <strong>the</strong> EU, <strong>the</strong> accession<br />
countries and <strong>the</strong> institutions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU;<br />
• by developing better domestic systems for enhanced co-ordination, coherence<br />
and priority setting internally, and<br />
• By promoting greater public awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU to<br />
individuals’ lives. (Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach, 2002).<br />
Three important factors were identified - interaction with <strong>the</strong> EU system, better<br />
domestic management <strong>of</strong> EU business, and sensitivity to <strong>the</strong> public dimension <strong>of</strong><br />
Ireland’s relations with <strong>the</strong> Union. <strong>The</strong> SOG began an auditing process to assess<br />
EU co-ordination mechanisms and to establish best practice.<br />
At <strong>the</strong> parliamentary level, <strong>the</strong> Government responded to <strong>the</strong> perceived weakness<br />
<strong>of</strong> Oireachtas scrutiny <strong>of</strong> EU business by introducing proposals for enhanced<br />
parliamentary scrutiny. <strong>The</strong> weakness or perceived absence <strong>of</strong> parliamentary<br />
scrutiny <strong>of</strong> EU business was highlighted as a serious problem during <strong>the</strong> Nice<br />
referendum. During and after <strong>the</strong> campaign, former Attorney General, Mr John<br />
Rodgers, among o<strong>the</strong>rs, highlighted <strong>the</strong> democratic deficit that existed at <strong>the</strong><br />
national level as a result <strong>of</strong> this lack <strong>of</strong> parliamentary monitoring. In response to<br />
this, <strong>the</strong> government developed a new system <strong>of</strong> enhanced Oireachtas scrutiny <strong>of</strong><br />
EU affairs. This in turn will have an impact on <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU business in<br />
<strong>the</strong> core executive. One senior <strong>of</strong>ficial concluded that <strong>the</strong> new guidelines would<br />
‘force <strong>Europe</strong> up <strong>the</strong> agenda <strong>of</strong> Departments” (Interview 48, 12.02.02). <strong>The</strong><br />
proposals for Oireachtas scrutiny, drafted in <strong>the</strong> first instance by <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, were approved by <strong>the</strong> Government in January 2002 and<br />
entered into operation in July 2002, following <strong>the</strong> May General Election. A set <strong>of</strong><br />
guidelines for <strong>the</strong> new processes was prepared by <strong>the</strong> administration and became<br />
‘living processes’ in <strong>the</strong> autumn 2002. <strong>The</strong> parliamentary link for <strong>the</strong> new<br />
procedures is <strong>the</strong> Joint Oireachtas Committee for <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs (JCEA),<br />
discussed above. All EU related documents are deposited in <strong>the</strong> EU Coordination<br />
Unit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs and passed on by <strong>the</strong> Unit to <strong>the</strong> JCEA.<br />
On receipt <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se documents (estimated at approximately 10,000 per year –<br />
interview 77, 11.07.02), <strong>the</strong> clerk <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Joint Oireachtas Committee, toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
with a sub-committee <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Joint Oireachtas Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs<br />
(informally termed <strong>the</strong> ‘sifting committee’) sifts, on a two-weekly basis, through<br />
<strong>the</strong>se documents and identifies EU legislative proposals that are significant<br />
enough to merit parliamentary scrutiny (<strong>the</strong> types <strong>of</strong> EU proposals eligible to be<br />
considered in this manner are specified in <strong>the</strong> Joint Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an
Affairs’ terms <strong>of</strong> reference). If <strong>the</strong> sifting committee so decides, a request will<br />
<strong>the</strong>n be made for <strong>the</strong> drafting and receipt by <strong>the</strong> Committee <strong>of</strong> an explanatory<br />
memorandum concerning <strong>the</strong> EU proposal from <strong>the</strong> relevant department. This<br />
memorandum is to be drafted by <strong>the</strong> departmental <strong>of</strong>ficial responsible for <strong>the</strong><br />
negotiation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposal in <strong>the</strong> EU policy-making arena and will be signed by<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> Minister or <strong>the</strong> Secretary General <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> department concerned. <strong>The</strong><br />
explanatory memorandum must be received by <strong>the</strong> EU Coordination Unit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
DFA within one month <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sifting committee’s request and it is passed on to<br />
<strong>the</strong> JCEA Secretariat.<br />
Explanatory memoranda should identify <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> particular proposal<br />
- major significance, some significance, purely technical - an assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
implications for Ireland, consequences for national legislation and <strong>the</strong> EU budget<br />
and <strong>the</strong> likely timetable for negotiations and implementation in addition to<br />
information about <strong>the</strong> legal basis, <strong>the</strong> voting rule and <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Parliament. On receipt <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se memoranda, <strong>the</strong> secretariat <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> JCEA will pass<br />
<strong>the</strong> proposals on to <strong>the</strong> relevant sectoral or departmental Oireachtas committees<br />
for consideration. <strong>The</strong> relevant committee will <strong>the</strong>n produce a report on its<br />
deliberations, which will be laid before <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas. While <strong>the</strong> proposals make<br />
provision for extensive engagement between <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas, ministers and<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficials, a binding scrutiny reserve has not been put in place. Instead, Ministers<br />
are honour bound to take <strong>the</strong> opinion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> relevant committee into account<br />
when negotiating in <strong>the</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers. At <strong>the</strong> same time, committees will<br />
be obliged to give an opinion on a proposal within a tight deadline and in advance<br />
<strong>of</strong> negotiation at Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers’ level, o<strong>the</strong>rwise approval <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proposal<br />
will be taken as given. Ministers will be available to give oral briefings and<br />
reports <strong>of</strong> EU meetings on an agreed basis and <strong>the</strong> committees deliberating on<br />
proposals may meet in private if a proposal is <strong>of</strong> a particularly sensitive nature.<br />
If <strong>the</strong> Committee concerned so desires, <strong>the</strong> Chief Whips <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> political parties are<br />
in agreement and depending on <strong>the</strong> parliamentary timetable, proposals may be<br />
debated on <strong>the</strong> floor <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas itself.<br />
<strong>The</strong> new guidelines will greatly increase <strong>the</strong> formality <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s arrangements<br />
for managing EU business. A dedicated web site is being developed for <strong>the</strong> Joint<br />
Oireachtas Committee on <strong>Europe</strong>an Affairs. It will contain all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> legislative<br />
proposals, identify <strong>the</strong> responsible Government department, and contain a copy<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> information notes developed by each department and <strong>the</strong> subsequent<br />
action taken by <strong>the</strong> Oireachtas. For <strong>the</strong> first time ever in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system, <strong>the</strong>re
will be an accessible database <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> flow <strong>of</strong> EU proposals though <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong><br />
system. <strong>The</strong> need for Government departments to prepare notes for <strong>the</strong><br />
Oireachtas committee will ensure that within each department formal systems<br />
must be put in place to ensure that such notes are prepared. Management within<br />
each department will have a far better idea <strong>of</strong> just how much EU business <strong>the</strong>y<br />
must handle and how best to deploy <strong>the</strong>ir resources. <strong>The</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> notes<br />
will also make <strong>the</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> priorities far more systematic as judgements<br />
must be made <strong>of</strong> just how important an EU proposal is. Following <strong>the</strong> original<br />
circular on <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU business in 1973, <strong>the</strong> guidelines on Oireachtas<br />
Scrutiny are <strong>the</strong> next most significant formalisation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU<br />
business in Ireland.<br />
SECTION VI:<br />
THE IRISH CORE EXECUTIVE AND EUROPE – THE BALANCE SHEET<br />
Ireland has experienced interaction with <strong>the</strong> EU system during its thirty years <strong>of</strong><br />
membership. <strong>The</strong> process <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation can be gleaned from <strong>the</strong> expansion<br />
<strong>of</strong> EU related business across <strong>the</strong> governmental system. In 1973, EU business<br />
was predominately <strong>the</strong> business <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Industry and<br />
Commerce (now ET&E), Finance and to a limited extent <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s<br />
Department. Today, all departments have EU related responsibilities. <strong>The</strong><br />
increased role <strong>of</strong> Justice and <strong>the</strong> Environment in <strong>the</strong> 1990s is particularly<br />
noteworthy. <strong>The</strong> gradual process <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation can be seen in <strong>the</strong> expansion<br />
<strong>of</strong> departmental representation in <strong>the</strong> Permanent Representation in Brussels and<br />
in Council working groups. EU business has become more widespread and thus<br />
more fragmented within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system. <strong>The</strong> creeping expansion <strong>of</strong> EU business<br />
was added on to <strong>the</strong> business <strong>of</strong> each department in an incremental manner.<br />
<strong>The</strong> EU has imposed a requirement for continuous albeit incremental change in<br />
<strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> EU business. In addition, <strong>the</strong>re are particular period that<br />
constitute critical junctures. In <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> system, <strong>the</strong>se were <strong>the</strong> pre-membership<br />
phase, <strong>the</strong> initial period <strong>of</strong> membership (1973-75), 1988-1992 and more recently<br />
<strong>the</strong> Nice ‘No’. <strong>The</strong> first three critical junctures arose from <strong>the</strong> demands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU<br />
system and coincided with preparations for membership, accession (1973-75)<br />
and a significant expansion in <strong>the</strong> scope and ambition <strong>of</strong> integration (1988-92).<br />
During this period, structures and processes were put in place for managing EU<br />
business and <strong>the</strong> co-ordination capacity was enhanced. <strong>The</strong> changes in 1988
coincided with <strong>the</strong> arrival <strong>of</strong> a new Prime Minister reflected a growing involvement<br />
<strong>of</strong> that department in EU business. <strong>The</strong> critical juncture created by <strong>the</strong> Nice ‘no’ is<br />
likely to have far deeper consequences for how <strong>Europe</strong> is managed in Dublin.<br />
Nice is a more significant critical juncture for <strong>the</strong> following reasons. First, <strong>Irish</strong><br />
ministers and civil servants could engage with <strong>the</strong> EU system in <strong>the</strong> past in <strong>the</strong><br />
context <strong>of</strong> a broad domestic consensus and within an enabling political<br />
environment. <strong>Europe</strong> was not a contentious issue in Ireland. This is no longer<br />
<strong>the</strong> case. Second, in <strong>the</strong> past Ireland’s socio-economic position and <strong>the</strong> desire for<br />
economic catch-up moulded policy positions across <strong>the</strong> spectrum. Identifying <strong>the</strong><br />
national interest was relatively straight forward. Third, <strong>the</strong> desire to be seen as<br />
broadly communautaire led successive <strong>Irish</strong> governments to go with <strong>the</strong> emerging<br />
EU consensus unless an issue was highly sensitive. <strong>The</strong> ‘no’ to Nice highlighted<br />
<strong>the</strong> weakness <strong>of</strong> EU knowledge among <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> electorate, a degree <strong>of</strong><br />
disinterest given <strong>the</strong> low level <strong>of</strong> turn-out and <strong>the</strong> emergence <strong>of</strong> a gap between<br />
<strong>the</strong> government and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> people on <strong>Europe</strong>. One senior <strong>of</strong>ficial spoke <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
‘escape <strong>of</strong> gases’ after Nice, which suggested that in place <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous<br />
consensus <strong>the</strong>re were a variety <strong>of</strong> views about <strong>the</strong> EU in political parties, <strong>the</strong><br />
Cabinet and <strong>the</strong> wider civil society. This inevitably led to a lot <strong>of</strong> soul searching<br />
and questioning at political and <strong>of</strong>ficial level. <strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong> this are likely to have<br />
long-term consequences for Ireland’s engagement with <strong>the</strong> EU system.<br />
<strong>The</strong> analysis in this report <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> structures, processes and activities <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s<br />
EU cadre enable us to draw out <strong>the</strong> key characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> way EU business in<br />
managed in Ireland. <strong>The</strong>se are:<br />
• a relatively small EU cadre that is responsible for <strong>the</strong> burden <strong>of</strong> work arising<br />
from membership. This cadre is collegiate and cohesive with a strong sense <strong>of</strong><br />
promoting and defending <strong>the</strong> interests <strong>of</strong> Ireland Inc.;<br />
• strong departmental autonomy with considerable latitude for <strong>the</strong> lead<br />
department. This latitude extends to sensitive dossiers;<br />
• responsibility for co-ordination <strong>of</strong> day to day business lies with <strong>the</strong><br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs and for <strong>the</strong> macro-sensitive dossiers with<br />
Foreign Affairs and <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach’s Department.<br />
• traditionally weak processes <strong>of</strong> interdepartmental co-ordination and a weakly<br />
institutionalised committee system. Consequently <strong>the</strong>re is a reliance on<br />
informal, highly personalised contact between ministries. This is changing.
<strong>The</strong> above characteristics influence how Ireland interacts with Brussels and<br />
manages EU business at home. In terms <strong>of</strong> reception, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive’s<br />
interaction with <strong>the</strong> EU is <strong>of</strong> a more passive than active nature. Change has been<br />
instigated in response to a small number <strong>of</strong> critical junctures and has occurred at<br />
an incremental and slow pace. Taking into account its size and style <strong>of</strong><br />
negotiation, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core executive’s projection onto <strong>the</strong> EU arena is also by<br />
definition passive. <strong>The</strong> style is pragmatic, consensual and broadly collegial.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re has been a marked focus on those issues that were vital to Ireland—<br />
structural funds, agriculture, taxation, and EU regulations that might affect<br />
Ireland’s competitive position <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> national budget. <strong>The</strong> resources <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
administration have been heavily focused on <strong>the</strong>se key policy areas. <strong>The</strong><br />
approach is to find negotiated solutions to Ireland’s problems in any particular set<br />
<strong>of</strong> negotiations. Radically new ideas that may not be immediately appealing to<br />
<strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> EU member states tend not to emanate from <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> core<br />
executive.<br />
It could be argued that this approach served Ireland well when it was easy to<br />
identify its core interests, and when <strong>the</strong> trajectory <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> EU and its policies were<br />
in broad measure close to <strong>Irish</strong> preferences. One advisor suggested that Ireland<br />
did not come out with visionary statements ‘because <strong>the</strong> way <strong>the</strong> EU works at <strong>the</strong><br />
moment suits us well’ (Interview 51, 28.02.02). <strong>The</strong> EU is however changing and<br />
so too is Ireland’s place in that Union. <strong>The</strong>re is evidence that <strong>the</strong> political and<br />
administrative class is reacting to those changes and to <strong>the</strong> Nice ‘no’ but is doing<br />
so on an adaptative basis ra<strong>the</strong>r than through radical change. <strong>The</strong> Taoiseach’s<br />
Department and Foreign Affairs are spearheading a reappraisal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system but<br />
<strong>the</strong> home departments are less seized <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues. Some are actively assessing<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir internal management <strong>of</strong> EU business but o<strong>the</strong>rs less so. All those<br />
interviewed for this study felt <strong>the</strong> need for a reappraisal but were concerned that<br />
sufficient political priority might not be given to it in <strong>the</strong> longer term. 2002 will<br />
prove a defining year in Ireland’s EU policy.
References<br />
Barrington, T.J. 1980. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Administrative System. Institute <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Administration: Dublin.<br />
Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. 1989. <strong>Managing</strong> Across Borders: <strong>The</strong> Transnational<br />
Solution. Hutchinson Business Books: London.<br />
Bulmer, Simon and Martin Burch. 1996. <strong>The</strong> British Core Executive and<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Integration: A New Institutionalist Research Prospectus. Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Government: Manchester.<br />
Bulmer, Simon and Martin Burch. 1998a. ‘Organising for <strong>Europe</strong>: Whitehall, <strong>the</strong><br />
British State and <strong>Europe</strong>an Union’. Public Administration. 76:4.<br />
Bulmer, Simon and Martin Burch. Eds. 1998b. <strong>The</strong> ‘<strong>Europe</strong>anisation’ <strong>of</strong> Central<br />
Government: <strong>the</strong> UK and Germany in historical institutionalist perspective.<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Policy Research Unit: Manchester.<br />
Bulmer, Simon and Martin Burch. 2000. ‘<strong>The</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation <strong>of</strong> Central<br />
Government: <strong>The</strong> UK and Germany in Historical Institutionalist Perspective’. In<br />
M.D. Aspinwall and G. Schneider. Eds. <strong>The</strong> Rules <strong>of</strong> Integration. Manchester<br />
University Press: Manchester.<br />
Byrne, D. et.al. 1995. ‘Strategic Management in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Civil Service: A Review<br />
Drawing on Experience in New Zealand and Australia’. Administration. IPA:<br />
Dublin.<br />
Christensen, Tom and Per Logreid. ‘New Public Management – are politicians<br />
losing control’ Paper presented at ECPR Joint Sessions, Mannheim, 26-31 March<br />
1999.<br />
Chubb, Basil. 1982. <strong>The</strong> Government and Politics <strong>of</strong> Ireland. Second Edition.<br />
Longman: London.<br />
Coakley, John and Michael Gallagher. Eds. 1999. Politics in <strong>the</strong> Republic <strong>of</strong><br />
Ireland. Third Edition. Routledge: London.<br />
Collier, R.B. and D. Collier. 1991. Shaping <strong>the</strong> Political Arena: Critical Junctures,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton<br />
University Press: Princeton NJ.<br />
Cortell, Andrew P. and Susan Peterson. 1999. ‘Altered States: Explaining<br />
Domestic Institutional Change’. British Journal <strong>of</strong> Political Science. 29, 177-203.<br />
De Valera, Sile. Minister for <strong>the</strong> Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and <strong>the</strong> Islands.<br />
Address to Boston College. 18 September 2000.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 2001. Strategy<br />
Statement 2001-2004. Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Food and Rural Development:<br />
Dublin.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Enterprise, Trade and Employment. 2001. Strategy Statement<br />
2001-2003. Department <strong>of</strong> Enterprise, Trade and Employment: Dublin.
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment and Local Government. 2001. Statement <strong>of</strong><br />
Strategy 2001-2003. Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Environment and Local Government:<br />
Dublin.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Finance. 2001. Statement <strong>of</strong> Strategy 2001-2003. Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Finance: Dublin.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs. 1998. Strategy Statement 1998. Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Foreign Affairs: Dublin.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs. 2001. Promoting Ireland’s Interests. Strategy<br />
Statement 2001-2003. Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs: Dublin.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Justice, Equality and Law Reform. 2001. Strategy Statement<br />
2001-2004. Department <strong>of</strong> Justice, Equality and Law Reform: Dublin.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach. 1999. Cabinet Handbook. Government<br />
Publications: Dublin.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach. 2001. Strategy Statement to 31 December 2003.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach: Dublin.<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach. 2002. Ireland and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union.<br />
Identifying Priorities and Pursuing Goals. Department <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Taoiseach: Dublin.<br />
Dooney, Sean and John O’Toole. 1998. <strong>Irish</strong> Government Today. Second<br />
Edition. Gill and Macmillan: Dublin.<br />
Dunleavy, P., R.A.W. Rhodes. 1990. ‘Prime Minister, Cabinet and Core Executive<br />
– Introduction’. Public Administration 68:1, Spring.<br />
Farrell, Brian. 1971. Chairman or Chief <strong>The</strong> role <strong>of</strong> Taoiseach in <strong>Irish</strong><br />
Government. Studies in <strong>Irish</strong> Political Culture 1. Gill and Macmillan: Dublin.<br />
Farrell, Brian. 1983. Sean Lemass. Gill and Macmillan: Dublin.<br />
Farrell, Brian. 1971. <strong>The</strong> Founding <strong>of</strong> Dail Eireann. Parliament and Nation-<br />
Building. Studies in <strong>Irish</strong> Political Culture 2. Gill and Macmillan: Dublin.<br />
FitzGerald, Garret. 1973. <strong>Irish</strong> Foreign Policy Statement to Dail Eireann May<br />
1973. Department <strong>of</strong> Foreign Affairs: Dublin.<br />
FitzGerald, Garret. 1985. ‘Ireland In <strong>Europe</strong>’. <strong>Irish</strong> School <strong>of</strong> Ecumenics Lecture<br />
Series. 25.2.1985.<br />
FitzGerald, Maurice, 1999. Ireland and <strong>the</strong> EEC, 1957 to 1966 (Florence. Italy:<br />
IUE PhD <strong>The</strong>sis. 1999).<br />
Gallagher, Michael, Michael Laver and Peter Mair. 2001. Representative<br />
Government in Modern <strong>Europe</strong>. Third Edition. McGraw Hill: Boston.<br />
Genschel. 2000. ‘Response to Bulmer and Burch’. In M.D. Aspinwall and G.<br />
Schneider eds. <strong>The</strong> Rules <strong>of</strong> Regulation. Manchester University Press:<br />
Manchester.<br />
Goetz, K.H. 2001. ‘Making Sense <strong>of</strong> Post-Communist Central Administration:<br />
Modernisation, <strong>Europe</strong>anisation or Latinisation’. Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Public Policy<br />
8:6.
Goetz, K.H. and S. Hix. 2001. <strong>Europe</strong>anised Politics <strong>Europe</strong>an Integration and<br />
National Political Systems. Frank Cass: London.<br />
Hall, Peter A. and Rosemary C.R. Taylor. 1996. ‘Political Science and <strong>the</strong> Three<br />
New Institutionalisms’. Political Studies. XLIV. 936-957.<br />
Harmsen, Robert. 1999. ‘<strong>The</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation <strong>of</strong> National Administrations: A<br />
Comparative Study <strong>of</strong> France and <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands’. Governance 12:82-113.<br />
Harney, Mary. 2000. Tanaiste. Address to a Meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> American Bar<br />
Association. Dublin, September.<br />
Héritier, Adrienne et.al. 2001. Differential <strong>Europe</strong>. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union Impact<br />
on National Policymaking. Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham and Oxford.<br />
Humphreys, P.C. 1997. <strong>The</strong> Fifth <strong>Irish</strong> Presidency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union: Some<br />
Management Lessons. Committee for Public Management Research Discussion<br />
Paper Number 2, Institute <strong>of</strong> Public Administration: Dublin.<br />
Ikenberry, G. J. 1988. ‘Conclusion: An Institutional Approach to American<br />
Foreign Economic Policy’. In G.J. Ikenberry, D.A. Lake and M. Mastanduno. Eds.<br />
<strong>The</strong> State and American Foreign Economic Policy. Cornell University Press: Ithaca<br />
NY.<br />
Kassim, H., B. Guy Peters and Vincent Wright. Eds. 2000. <strong>The</strong> national<br />
coordination <strong>of</strong> EU policy: <strong>the</strong> domestic level. Oxford University Press: Oxford.<br />
Kassim, H. Ed. <strong>The</strong> national coordination <strong>of</strong> EU policy: <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an level.<br />
Oxford University Press: Oxford.<br />
Keatinge, Patrick. 1978. A Place among <strong>the</strong> Nations. Issues <strong>of</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Foreign<br />
Policy. Institute <strong>of</strong> Public Administration: Dublin.<br />
Keatinge, Patrick. Ed. 1991. Ireland and EC Membership Evaluated. Pinter:<br />
London.<br />
Keatinge, Patrick. 1995. ‘<strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Foreign Service: an Observer’s View’.<br />
Seminar on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Foreign Service, Trinity College, 2 March.<br />
Keogh, Dermot. 1990. Ireland and <strong>Europe</strong> 1919-1989 A Diplomatic and Political<br />
History. Hibernian University Press: Cork and Dublin.<br />
Ladrech, R. 1994. ‘<strong>Europe</strong>anisation and Domestic Politics and Institutions: <strong>The</strong><br />
Case <strong>of</strong> France’. Journal <strong>of</strong> Common Market Studies 32, 69-87.<br />
Laffan, Brigid. 2001. Organising for a Changing <strong>Europe</strong>: <strong>Irish</strong> central<br />
government and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union. Policy Institute: Trinity College Dublin.<br />
Lee, J.J. 1989. Ireland 1912-1985 Politics and Society. Cambridge University<br />
Press: Cambridge.<br />
Maher, D.J. 1986. <strong>The</strong> Tortuous Path. <strong>The</strong> course <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s entry into <strong>the</strong> EEC<br />
1948-73. Institute <strong>of</strong> Public Administration: Dublin.<br />
March, James and Olsen, Johan. 1984. ‘<strong>The</strong> New Institutionalism: Organisational<br />
Factors in Political Life.’ American Journal <strong>of</strong> Political Research 78.
O’Donnell, Rory. Ed. 2000. <strong>Europe</strong> <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Experience. Institute <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Affairs: Dublin.<br />
OECD. 1981. Adapting Public Administration for Participating in Supranational<br />
Bodies. OECD: Paris.<br />
O’Halpin, Eunan. 1996. ‘<strong>Irish</strong> Parliamentary Culture and <strong>the</strong> EU: Formalities to<br />
be Observed’ in P. Norton. Ed. National Parliaments and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Union.<br />
Frank Cass: London.<br />
O’Leary, Brendan. 1991. ‘An Taoiseach: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Prime Minister’. West<br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Politics. Special Issue on West <strong>Europe</strong>an Prime Ministers. Vol.14. April<br />
1991. Number 2.<br />
P.A. Consulting. 2002. Evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Progress <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Strategic Management<br />
Initiative/Delivering Better Government Modernisation Programme. PA<br />
Consulting Ltd.: Dublin.<br />
Page, E.C. and L. Wouters. 1995. ‘<strong>The</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>anisation <strong>of</strong> National<br />
Bureaucracies’. In J. Pierre Ed. Bureaucracy in <strong>the</strong> Modern State. Edward Elgar:<br />
Cheltenham.<br />
Peterson, John and Michael Shackleton. Eds. 2002. <strong>The</strong> Institutions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>an Union. Oxford University Press: Oxford.<br />
Pierson, Paul. 2000a. ‘<strong>The</strong> Limits <strong>of</strong> Design: Explaining Institutional Origins and<br />
Change’. Governance 13:4, 475-499.<br />
Pierson, Paul. 2000b. ‘Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and <strong>the</strong> Study <strong>of</strong><br />
Politics’. American Political Science Review 94:2.<br />
Radelli, C.M. 2000. ‘Whi<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Europe</strong>anisation Concept stretching and<br />
substantive change’. EiOP online papers Vol.4 (2000), No.8.<br />
Rhodes, R.A.W. Ed. 2000. Transforming British Government. Volume 1<br />
Changing Institutions. Macmillan: Hampshire.<br />
Rhodes, R.A.W. Ed. 2000. Transforming British Government. Volume 2<br />
Changing Roles and Relationships. Macmillan: Hampshire.<br />
Robinson, Mary. 1979. ‘<strong>Irish</strong> Parliamentary Scrutiny <strong>of</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Community<br />
Legislation’, Common Market Law Review, 16, pp.17-8.<br />
Schout, A. 1999. Internal Management <strong>of</strong> External Relations: <strong>The</strong><br />
<strong>Europe</strong>anisation <strong>of</strong> an Economic Affairs Ministry. <strong>Europe</strong>an Institute <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Administration: Maastricht.<br />
Scott, Richard W. 2001. Institutions and Organisations. Second Edition. Sage:<br />
Thousand Oaks.<br />
<strong>The</strong>len, K. and S. Steinmo. 1992. ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative<br />
Politics’ in S. Steinmo, K. <strong>The</strong>len and F. Longstreth. Eds. Structuring Politics:<br />
Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge University Press:<br />
Cambridge.
<strong>The</strong>len, Kathleen. 1999. ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’.<br />
Annual Review <strong>of</strong> Political Science. 2: 369-404.<br />
Hayes. 1984.<br />
Smith 2000.
Appendix 1<br />
Table 6:<br />
Attendance by Ministers and Officials at Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers Meetings<br />
2001<br />
Council<br />
Council<br />
Meetings<br />
Meetings<br />
led by<br />
Minister<br />
Meetings<br />
led by<br />
Minister<br />
<strong>of</strong> State<br />
Meetings<br />
led by<br />
Officials<br />
1. General Affairs Council 15 10 4 1<br />
2. Economic and Finance 11 11 - -<br />
3. Agriculture 10 10 - -<br />
4. Environment 8 3 - 5<br />
5. Justice, <strong>Home</strong> Affairs and<br />
8 5 2 1<br />
Civil Protection<br />
6. Internal Market/Consumer<br />
5 - 3 2<br />
Affairs/Tourism<br />
7.Transport/Telecommunications 5 5 - -<br />
8. Employment & Social Policy 4 3 1<br />
9. Culture 4 3 - 1<br />
10. Fisheries 4 4 - -<br />
11. Education/Youth 3 1 - 2<br />
12. Development 2 - 1 1<br />
13. Research 3 - 3 -<br />
14. Budget 2 - 2 -<br />
15. Health 2 1 1 -<br />
16. Industry/Energy 2 - 2 -<br />
Total: 88 53 21 14<br />
Statistics:<br />
Ministers led <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Delegation to 60 per cent <strong>of</strong> EU Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers’<br />
meetings in 2001.<br />
Ministers <strong>of</strong> State led <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Delegation to 24 per cent <strong>of</strong> EU Council <strong>of</strong><br />
Ministers’ meetings in 2001.<br />
Officials (Permanent/Deputy Permanent Representative or Department Officials)<br />
led <strong>the</strong> <strong>Irish</strong> Delegation to 16 per cent <strong>of</strong> EU Council <strong>of</strong> Ministers’ meetings in<br />
2001.
Appendix 2<br />
Bar charts <strong>of</strong> Ireland’s implementation record in 2001<br />
Bar Chart 1:<br />
100<br />
80<br />
Infringement Proceedings against<br />
Ireland<br />
60<br />
40<br />
LFN<br />
RO<br />
REF<br />
20<br />
0<br />
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001<br />
Year<br />
LFN = Letter <strong>of</strong> formal notice<br />
RO = Reasoned opinion<br />
REF = Referral to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an Court <strong>of</strong> Justice<br />
Source: <strong>Europe</strong>an Commission Annual report on monitoring <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong><br />
Community law 2001
Bar Chart 2: Infringement Proceedings 2001 - Letters <strong>of</strong> Formal Notice<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
LFN<br />
20<br />
0<br />
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P Fin S UK<br />
Bar Chart 3: Infringement Proceedings 2001 - Reasoned Opinions<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P Fin S UK<br />
RO
Bar Chart 4: Infringement Proceedings 2001 - Referral to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Europe</strong>an<br />
Court <strong>of</strong> Justice<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
REF<br />
5<br />
0<br />
B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P Fin S UK<br />
Source: <strong>Europe</strong>an Commission Annual report on monitoring <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong><br />
Community law 2001