JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 26 Jan 2010

European Citizens’ Initiative: Discussion with European Movement Ireland.

Chairman

The joint committee will resume its consideration of the European Commission Green Paper on the citizens' initiative. We have already discussed this issue with the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, and with some of Ireland's MEPs. I welcome the representatives of European Movement Ireland to today's meeting: Ms Andrea Pappin, executive director; Ms Billie Sparks, education and advocacy manager; and Ms Aoife Todd.

The European citizens' initiative is an innovation of the Lisbon treaty aimed at bringing greater democracy to the European Union by enabling the public to cause the European Commission to introduce legislation. It also allows the public to register a complaint about existing legislation. The citizens' initiative is an important element of the Lisbon treaty. The discussion to date has centred on how to make it more effective and democratic. It is essential that the initiative has integrity and is secure from abuse or frivolous activity. We must ensure it meets the requirements of the Lisbon treaty and its original objectives are achieved. I invite Ms Pappin to begin the movement's presentation.

Ms Andrea Pappin

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. As members are aware, one of the goals of the Lisbon treaty was to reinforce the democratic fabric of the European Union. The European Commission is currently seeking views on how the citizens' initiative, which is a new democratic tool, could take shape. As many are aware, European Movement Ireland is a civil society organisation founded more than 56 years ago with the goal of making Europe much more part of our day-to-day discussion, rather than reserving it until six weeks before a national vote. We felt well suited to review this initiative and welcome the opportunity to share our views with members.

We have taken the European Parliament's definition of the citizens' initiative as the starting basis for building the discussion we had with our members. We addressed the question of the citizens' initiative and what it aims to do. It formalised a system that exists in some form. In reality, it is already possible for EU countries to lobby the Commission and the Parliament on a particular issue. Therefore, citizens can initiate requests for policy change by lobbying a national party. Citizens are also free to lodge a complaint to the institutions through the European Ombudsman and to petition the EU Parliament for a matter to be investigated when they are affected by the issue raised.

It is useful to frame this debate by noting that we need the citizens' initiative. It addresses an existing need and formalises a current ad hoc procedure. A number of member states have some kind of initiative system. While the system is new to us, it is not new to others in the European Union. Not only does the citizens’ initiative formalise a practice that is going on, but it marks a step in the institutional reform that the latest treaty introduced. For many, the citizens’ initiative will be the first tangible outcome of the Lisbon treaty. Given our near habit of double referenda for European treaties, this very tangible outcome of the Lisbon treaty is an opportunity for the European Union to become more part of our day-to-day politics, so we do not need to wait until the six week period before a referendum.

It is important that this initiative has integrity. A failed initiative will reflect badly on the Lisbon treaty as a whole, giving oxygen to groups who are against European co-operation for a variety of reasons. There is no doubt that the citizens' initiative is a step in the right direction but European Movement Ireland feels that we must be realistic when we consider how far-reaching the citizens' initiative might be and that expectations need to be clearly managed. In the discussions with our members and with our advisory council, three key themes for the successful implementation of the citizens' initiative emerged.

The issue of transparency was a major concern during our discussion, more so on the European institutional side than for those organisations or individuals taking part in the initiatives. If the Commission itself is given responsibility for deciding on the legitimacy of initiatives it could be seen as a filtering process and would severely undermine the legitimacy of the tool. European Movement Ireland strongly urges that the European Ombudsman be given responsibility for the admissibility of initiatives and the validation of signatures to reduce any scepticism about the transparency of the initiative. This would involve an amendment to the current remit of the role of the European Ombudsman, and this is something that we would see as significantly worthwhile in terms of transparency and good separation of powers.

Inclusion was the second theme. Overall, our members favoured adoption of a low threshold to the citizens' initiative. We seek to make the process as inclusive as possible so that we can start to erase the image of the EU as being less democratic than it is. I understand that the committee has discussed this topic so we will not delve into the detail on the low threshold. However, we favour setting the signatures at 0.2% and a quarter of EU member states to be part of it. Given our outreach work in schools and colleges and taking a non-formal educational approach to the debate on Europe, the key element we wish to raise is the voting age. The Green Paper suggests that the minimum age for taking part in an initiative should be set at 18 years, matching the age for voting in EU elections. As an organisation that encourages direct involvement with the EU, European Movement Ireland feels this age limit could be lowered to 16 years and relatively easily in this country. The citizens' initiative is an excellent opportunity to get young people involved, engaged and interested in Europe. To forgo this would be an opportunity lost. We have a chance in Ireland to seize this opportunity and to use the signing of an initiative to be almost like a learner permit for fully-fledged voting at the age of 18.

To avoid a nightmare in getting people to register to take part we suggest using PPS numbers or passport numbers as a way of limiting an excessive administrative burden. At a previous event, I noticed that officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government started to react when anybody started to discuss the topic so we have tried to find practical solutions to enable lowering of the voting age. One example is to view it as a 'learner voting system'. Another idea is to attach it to the learner driver permit, as young people will apply for a driver permit and can then be given the information, to avoid the burden of trying to get them to apply for it.

The third theme raised during the consultation with members was sincerity of intention. For the individual, this sincerity of intention would mean that an on-line forum with information on initiatives is provided, but that those who want to sign a petition need to do so at a local post office, local government office or in the library. Thus they are required to do more than just add an e-mail address to a list. By going that extra mile to sign a petition rather than being free to do so at the click of a mouse, there would be a tangible, active aspect to this project while encouraging and fostering a greater sense of civic duty. Great and all as it was to have "A Nation Once Again" voted the world's top tune by a BBC World Service survey in 2002, we in Ireland have first-hand knowledge of how powerful the Internet can be and believe that measures need to be in place to ensure the citizens' initiative is taken seriously.

European Movement Ireland feels that the Internet should definitely be utilised in this initiative to inform and mobilise citizens across the EU and provide that sense of horizontal communication. However, we also need to be mindful that access to the Internet in Ireland is very much characterised by demographic variables such as age, income and so on. To leave the citizens' initiative as something that only those with the internet have access to would be contrary to the ideals that form the very basis of this project.

The citizens' initiative is most definitely a step in the right direction, though it is currently unclear where exactly this step will lead. The initiative is in its infancy; it is experimental and a learning curve must be expected. The EU, and most importantly the Commission, needs to manage the expectations of citizens in terms of this initiative so that the results incurred through the submission of 1 million or more signatures are not inflated. We at European Movement Ireland have watched as the debate here in Ireland has devoted much of its time to the responsibility of individuals involved in this process — for example, whether initiatives will have to be written in legal text, how we will register our initiatives and how we will have to verify signatures. Much of the remaining discussion has been devoted to the role to be played by national and local government in ensuring the smooth, swift and successful running of the initiative.

We have noticed that in all this detailed discussion, there is little mention of the responsibility or procedure required by Europe. European Movement Ireland feels that the responsibilities of the European institutions have not received due consideration in the Green Paper or at any of the meetings or discussions we have attended. We presume this information will appear in the next documentation to circulate from Brussels but, given the tight schedule being mooted and the talk of first reading approval through Parliament, it is increasingly unlikely that a White Paper will have time for much discussion. Therefore, we at European Movement Ireland would like to take this chance to raise some issues now regarding institutional responsibility and opportunity. In short, let me summarise it as follows: we have shown them ours, it is now time for them to show us theirs.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I am all for that.

Ms Andrea Pappin

I thank Deputy Dooley.

So what are the responsibilities of the European institutions? We see them as twofold. It has been proven too often within the European system that devilish detail can be distracting. I am aware that some people from the European Commission are in the audience and I enjoy working with them. However, European Movement Ireland asks the Commission to resist its usual habit of pre-empting every eventuality. In many of the discussions we have observed the detail has definitely been the nub. As we said before, these details are concentrated on the individual but we may concentrate so much on pre-empting all eventualities that the initiative loses sight of its initial purpose, namely, citizen engagement. Let us not forget to see the wood while observing the trees.

The second responsibility of the European institutions is to recognise where the power of the system actually lies. We see the citizens' initiative as a clear opportunity, albeit small and symbolic, to further clarify the balance of power and to make clear where the power really lies in the European system. The Commission holds the right of initiative but decision-making power is held within the Parliament and Council. Although some say there is little detail in the treaty article dealing with the citizens' initiative, the treaty article corroborates this point. Article 11 states: "Not less than 1 million citizens, who are nationals of a significant number of member states, may take the initiative of inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any proposal on matters where citizens consider a legal Act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the treaties." The key word for us is "invite". We are all free to accept and decline invitations and sometimes we do not even have to give a reason. However, when 1 million people invite a body to do something they surely deserve a response.

We strongly urge that the European Ombudsman play a key role in the verification process required in the citizens' initiative. We also ask that the Commission play its role as initiator of legislation, as opposed to acting as judge and jury. If the Ombudsman rules that an initiative has legal basis, and if 1 million verified signatures are collected, we believe it is in Europe's interest that the Commission devises the appropriate legislative tool to initiate proceedings. Ultimately it is the Parliament, the Council and those who are directly elected to those institutions who should decide the fate of the legislation inspired by the citizens' initiative.

One of the Spanish Government's aims during its Presidency between now and July is to promote a people's Europe and make it more responsive. A people's Europe will not transpire without everybody playing their role and fulfilling their responsibilities. Ensuring those responsibilities are enshrined in the procedure for the citizens' initiative means there will be potential for this project to have real impact. That is why we have set out a step-by-step process, a copy of which members of the committee have received. We hope it will prove to be a simple guide to how the system could work, to the benefit of both the institutions and the individuals who are at the core of the EU's work.

The project has major potential. It is a significant development in European politics, but it should not be seen as a panacea for what is known as the democratic deficit. The citizens' initiative could be a genuinely valuable and efficient instrument to generate awareness, participation and robust debate, acting as a barometer for public opinion at the very least or, at most, a tool to effect and initiate real legislative change. It is up to the Commision to ensure the regulation it puts forward promotes the latter. It is our view that a focus on sincerity of intention and a commitment to transparency and inclusivity should be its starting point.

European Movement Ireland believes the citizens' initiative creates a dialogue beyond national governments and encourages genuine citizen involvement and engagement with the EU at a direct level. If this democratic experiment is managed well it could go even further and create a space for European citizens to reach across borders and unite people on a new level. However, no political experiment can be undertaken without caveats and we need to be mindful of the fact that there will be unintended consequences of the citizens' initiative. How it is presented to us citizens and how the Union responds to its citizens will be integral to ensuring the success of this new venture in pan-European democracy.

Regardless of what the Commission decides and how the Parliament and Council view the initiative and ultimately approve it, there is a responsibility on all of us, in this forum and in our wider communities, to ensure Irish people are made aware of this new string to their participatory bow. The media will also be key. It is well known that media focus on European matters seems to flourish during referendum time but it can be virtually non-existent outside of that. While we understand why this may be the case we take the view that it is unhealthy for politics in Ireland. This initiative could reshape how democracy operates in Europe and create a space for European citizens. European Movement Ireland feels the initiative merits more attention, discussion and debate, be that in the media, the political classes or among Irish citizens in the pub. The citizens' initiative is an exciting new project for European democracy and we owe it to ourselves to be part of it. European Movement Ireland is looking at the issue of media engagement as part of our next piece of advocacy work and we look forward to finding solutions to a larger yet integral problem, namely, raising the debate on Europe in Ireland.

Chairman

I thank Ms Pappin for her clear and comprehensive submission. I will call on Deputies Dooley, O'Rourke and Timmins and Senator Quinn, in that order.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome European Movement Ireland and thank its members for their interesting paper. It is a while since they were before the committee and we should recognise the efforts they made during the debate on the Lisbon treaty. They took a proactive role which was enormously helpful in engaging with the Irish people. Their target audience was younger people and they made efforts to encourage them to take an interest in Europe. That was an important dimension of the campaign and we owe a great debt of gratitude to them. They have continued to show initiative and that they are not a one-trick pony but intend to continue in the evolution of the debate.

While the initiative is a very important tool in advancing the better understanding of Europe by showing the ability of the citizen to effect change, I have a concern over signatures collected by electronic means. It is interesting that European Movement Ireland has identified the ombudsman as important in this regard. It is important that citizens do not sign up to one initiative while inquiring after some other matter. We regularly get delegations saying that 400 people in one village all want us to do something but if I went out today I could get 400 people to sign up to anything. I am concerned that electronic means will tempt people to opt into an initiative even though they have no knowledge of or interest in it. We should devise technology to ensure people who sign up to petitions do so because they want to and have an interest in something, rather than just because it is the latest craze on Facebook or Twitter. Many people sign up to something but when asked why they did so say they do not know. I am not sure what the solution might be but I wonder whether the witnesses can carry out further work to assist us in that regard.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I welcome the representatives from the European Movement before the joint committee. When looking at their three lovely fresh faces, I note that 1954 certainly was a long time ago.

Ms Andrea Pappin

We were not at that meeting.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I had guessed not, which was what I meant. We will not gild the lily. I have said it and that will be the end of it.

Ms Andrea Pappin

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

A peace lily.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Arthur Beesley has a very good article in today's edition of The Irish Times about the citizens’ initiative. In this article, which I read through twice, he is quite lukewarm and I do not wonder as to the reason for this because I am decidedly lukewarm myself. The Chairman is familiar with my views——

Ms Andrea Pappin

As are we, because we have been present.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

—— because I have been waxing lyrical about them. While I hesitate to use the word "fraud", which is incorrect, this is not a citizens' initiative. How will the ordinary woman or man in the street access 1 million would-be signatories to an initiative for which they hope? We are all fooling ourselves in this regard and I cannot understand it.

I welcome the Chairman's openness in having a variety of opinions to discuss this so-called citizens' initiative. I went along with it when it was included as a clause in the Lisbon treaty; who would not? Even then, however, doubt lingered strongly in my mind. How will an ordinary person, by whom I mean someone the Chairman or I might know, who lives in an ordinary house in an ordinary street and who believes he or she has a case to put to Europe, get 1 million signatures? How will such a person go about doing so? How will such people have their cases judged to be suitable for such a citizens' initiative?

Before we get hung up on this wonderful citizens' initiative, I must state this is anything but a citizens' initiative. Moreover, I will continue to beat the drum on this issue at an increasingly louder tempo as I go on. That is not the witnesses' fault as I am simply explaining what I feel myself.

Does anyone present not know people who wish to bring up grievances or who have something they wish to change in respect of legislation, a directive or whatever from Europe? However, I will explain what would happen were I to approach such people in my constituency at the end of the week and tell them that I have the solution, that is, to go out and get, including one's self, 1 million signatures. While I am sure the witnesses mix with ordinary folk, members do so every day of their lives and such people would laugh at this suggestion. Moreover, were members to give expression to or speak about this initiative, they would continue to holler. Although members could attend meetings and speak in highfalutin' terms about this wonderful exercise in democracy and how wonderful the citizens' initiative would be, on consideration how wonderful is it? On the contrary, how vacuous is it to suggest that ordinary citizens would be able to get 1 million, less one, signatures to put forward their gripe, case or proposed amendment to legislation or to a directive?

The witnesses talk about it being a people's Europe, which has always been the crib. Ordinary people continually make the point that Europe is not about them. They state it is far away, that they do not feel ad idem with it and they do not consider it to be looking after them. While this was to be the solution, it is no such thing. It reminds me of the tale of the emperor’s new clothes in which, as the emperor passed by, everyone exclaimed how wonderful he was until some little fellow stated that he was wearing nothing and had no clothes. This measure has neither clothes nor raiment of any kind.

While I hesitate to use the word "fraudulent" because that is not the intention, I do not know the sort of Europe for which it is meant. Are the people of Latvia rioting in the streets with delight over the citizens' initiative? I doubt it very much. Similarly, are people in Lithuania rioting with delight because they have got a citizens' initiative? I rather think not and I do not believe there will be paeans of praise about it in Ireland either, because it is not what it is made out to be. It is, in fact, the emperor with no clothes. Nevertheless, I thank the witnesses for their attendance and most interesting presentation. Although they have persuaded themselves, they certainly have not persuaded me.

Chairman

Deputy Timmins should follow that.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I agree with much of what Deputy O'Rourke said. The citizens' initiative certainly was one of the weaker selling points for me in the Lisbon treaty. During either campaign, I dreaded to explain the citizens' initiative and what constituted a significant number of countries or 1 million signatures. It is highly abstract and populist and I do not know how it was ever included. However, it is contained within the Lisbon treaty, which members supported, and they now must try to find a mechanism to try to address it as it cannot simply be parked. I do not know what that mechanism might be but I wish to mention a couple of specific points raised by the witnesses from the European Movement and others. Incidentally, although I do not know how the solution to this issue will come about, it would make sense to specify one quarter of the member states, as opposed to the one third sought by the Commission, as well as the 0.2% of the population. I also would stick with the age limit of 18 years, at least in the initial stages. If people who are 18 years and older can be made interested in this regard, the 16 to 18 year-olds can be worked on afterwards.

As for difficulties with an on-line petition, in the first instance I fail to discern how one might induce 1 million people to be sufficiently strongly motivated about anything pertaining to Europe as such to sign a petition, unless it related to immigration, war, foreign policy or something similar. As Europe is a subject that does not excite people in general, I find it difficult to envisage how this would be done in the first instance. Nevertheless, one must try to get in place a system of some kind, which I expect will be for a trial period, and which must include a verification mechanism. While I do not know whether this will involve traipsing along to the post office, it must be made as easy as possible. I am unsure whether I agree with obliging people to physically attend a post office because were a highly emotive issue to arise, although I cannot imagine such an issue, it would clog up the system. Nevertheless, a mechanism to verify signatures, be it on-line or whatever, is essential. I do not expect someone to ring 1 million telephone numbers or check 1 million addresses but by their nature, politicians do not like petitions because they have seen how they can be abused. In general, on receipt of a petition, I put it in the bin. I have received petitions for and against issues in which the signatures were common to both.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Babes in arms are signing them.

Deputy Billy Timmins

That is true. I pay more attention to a complaint from a person who comes to me individually than I would to a petition signed by 1,000 people.

It is an extremely weak mechanism within the treaty. I have not made a submission to the committee and do not know whether whatever mechanism is put in place will be successful or will be taken seriously. Were a successful mechanism to be put in place, there should be a time limit on how long it takes to get it together. As for the time limit in respect of the response from the Commission, I believe the witnesses suggested a limit of three months. This might be a little short and perhaps it should be six months.

One overriding point that struck me throughout the witnesses' submission pertained to the difficulty of getting people to engage in Europe, as well as the media coverage thereon. In her introductory comments, Ms Pappin mentioned her disappointment at the lack of press coverage. She stated quite rightly that there was much press coverage during the Lisbon referendums. However, much of it was extremely hard hitting. It hit out at the establishment, the political parties and system, as well as the European bodies for what was described as a failure to engage with the public. Politicians are not the medium for engaging in this regard. Although they try to do what they can — and Deputy Durkan and some members of this committee have spend hours slaving away on issues — put simply, the organs of the media generally exist on a commercial and for-profit basis and will not cover the issues. This is a difficulty and as a politician, it is a little hard to stomach editorials that appear in the week before an election to the effect that the system has failed to engage with the public in respect of European affairs issues. Perhaps this joint committee should consider submitting such stuff on a monthly basis to the editors of the main media organs nationwide to prevent them from accusing members of not forwarding the information to them, thereby getting them to disseminate it. However, this committee is not going to compete with "The X Factor" on this subject.

A system will have to be put in place; we cannot down tools and state we want it removed. To have it deleted we would probably have to hold another referendum and ratify the treaties again. We must work with what we have. I do not have a solution for it but perhaps we can all put little bits together and come up with a system for a trial period to see how it operates. I wait with interest for the final outcome.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I thank Ms Pappin and her team. I have been an enthusiastic European since 1958, long before Ms Pappin was born and four years after the project began. After I finished university I got on the boat and went to the continent for a year and returned very enthusiastic about Europe. I went as an Irish nationalist and returned as an Irish nationalist but also as a European. I did not understand, back in those days, what it meant to be European. We have five children and sent them all to school in France for one term before they were 14 years of age because it is stated that if one learns a language before one is 14 one can speak it without an accent. At the age of 14, the two girls fell in love with French men——

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

The Senator does not really mean that.

Senator Feargal Quinn

They are now married to French men and we have six French-speaking grandchildren.

I touched on this because I believe the European Movement is worthy of support. However, I also believe in parliamentary democracy and therefore I am concerned. Kenneth Cork, a leading receiver of companies in Britain, when asked whether he could tell a company that would get into trouble in future, stated that he discovered that building a new head office seemed to be a sign of a company that would get into trouble but that the one sure sign a company would fail was if a fountain was put in the foyer of that head office.

I am concerned that some of these proposals are fountains in foyers. We should not give serious consideration to the automatic reduction of the voting age to 16. The American revolution came about because of the argument that there should be no taxation without representation. It should be the other way around; people should not be represented until they pay tax. The danger is that we will end up with people having a strong vote who influence how the European Union is run although they will not pay tax until many years later.

When phrases such as "exciting new project" and "sincerity of intention" are used I question whether parliamentary democracy will be damaged by the citizens' initiative. Parliamentary democracy has worked well since the Magna Carta. It provides the chance to elect somebody who does something. Deputy Timmins spoke about the experience of people approaching him and I have had the experience of people grabbing me by the lapels and telling me they are very concerned about something. That must be compared with 1 million signatures.

I fully support Ms Pappin with regard to those who state that the Internet should not be used to obtain information. President Obama used the Internet and look how successful he was. Stating that we should not use the internet because older people do not use it would have been like stating in the 1800s that we should not use reading and writing in elections because many people cannot use them. The Internet should be used; it is the manner in which we will communicate and obtain information. However, I have sincere doubts about some of the steps being taken.

I was president of Eurocommerce for the past three years and we met consumer associations based in Brussels that seemed to spend much time trying to establish what consumers wanted. However, the marketplace does that automatically. One does not need public opinion polls to establish what consumers want; if customers do not like what the market provides they go elsewhere. That is how it works. Some organisations, and to an extent the European Movement, are in danger of building quangos to provide solutions which can be found in more easily acceptable ways, one of which is normal parliamentary democracy. I question whether we should build up such structures, whether an ombudsman or another structure, at European level rather than leaving them at national level. The European Movement has a challenge and a target to reach. It needs to sell the benefits of a united Europe and has done a great job in the past. Let us ensure that we do not build up little fortresses or, even worse, fountains.

Senator Déirdre de Búrca

Like others I welcome representatives of the European Movement to the meeting. Along with others, I admire the work it does, particularly the work it has done in recent years as it has adopted a newer, fresher and much more accessible approach to informing people about what happens in the European Union and the European project generally. This is good because we are all aware of the significant democratic deficit which becomes a particular focus of attention during EU treaty referendum campaigns. We need to provide people with more information but not the dull, dry and terribly bureaucratic information that people are used to receiving about the European Union. The approach taken by the European Movement focuses more on younger people and presenting matters in language that people can understand and relate to, which is very important.

The citizens' initiative is a very important development and those of us who encouraged a "Yes" vote to the Lisbon treaty pushed it to reassure many people who feel the European Union does not listen to them and that they cannot influence its decision making or policy agenda. We made a case that the citizens' initiative will be an important mechanism to help them have their voice heard and try to influence policies emerging from Europe. I am delighted to see the quick movement on this; the Lisbon treaty was ratified recently and already we see early movement on rolling out the citizens' initiative.

It was mentioned that perhaps we should stop focusing on what national governments will do and focus on other matters. However, national governments and parliamentarians will play a very important role in selling this because, as Deputy O'Rourke stated, citizens will not instantly be out celebrating this on the streets. They will have to be persuaded. We are all in the business of persuading them because it is in all of our interest to try to ensure that citizens feel more engaged with the European Union and with the decisions being made at European level that affect our day to day lives.

I understand why people feel cautious. Some people here are concerned that perhaps it will lead to unrealistic expectations. Expectations will have to be managed but we must start by approaching this with a degree of enthusiasm and seeing its potential. We are very good at speaking about the need for innovation and creativity. In this instance, it will be quite a challenge to come up with a mechanism that will work in 27 member states, engage citizens, use electronic media and try to engage younger people. It will not be agreed overnight but how we approach it and a degree of enthusiasm on the part of the people to whom most citizens listen, namely their national parliamentarians, will be important.

I hope we will all approach this by considering how we can make it work. Already, organised civil society throughout the European Union tries to influence policy. Those groups, which are already quite well organised, will be delighted with this. The challenge for us is to try to involve other citizens who up to now have not really been that engaged with debates at European level. We need to be as positive as we can be.

Electronic media will have an important role. Barack Obama's campaign has been mentioned. He tapped into the potential to communicate with voters individually and personally. It seems to me that the success of his campaign across the huge country of the United States offers us hope that this initiative can be successful and can reach people. It will not be straightforward, however. We will have to examine some of the problems mentioned by other speakers. It is possible that people will get roped in to signing up electronically to an initiative without having any understanding of what it is about.

I am strongly in favour of allowing people aged 16 and over to participate in the citizens' initiative. Young people are falling away from formal politics. The citizens' initiative does not offer 16 year olds the right to vote, as to do so would interfere in the sovereign matters of individual member states. However, it encourages them to get interested in policy debates that are taking place at EU level and to lend their support to new policy initiatives that are emerging. I hope we can continue to put pressure on the Commission to consider including those aged 16 and over in anything that is agreed under the citizens' initiative.

I am delighted that European Movement Ireland is as positive as it is about this initiative. I hope we can all be part of trying to make it work and rolling it out across the Union over the coming year or so.

Senator Paschal Donohoe

We need to be careful about two aspects of this measure. First, this initiative has not been proposed by European Movement Ireland — it has been provided for in a treaty for which everybody around this table campaigned. We have the capacity to introduce it. The movement has made positive comments about the initiative.

Second, I do not think one can lament the lack of a people's Europe while decrying the presence of an initiative that allows the people of Europe to lobby the European Union's institutions directly. One cannot do both. If one wants to bring the people of Europe closer to the institutions that are meant to represent them indirectly, it is difficult to be true to that belief while criticising an initiative that seeks to do that.

I welcome this initiative. I would like to speak about two important aspects of its operation that have been mentioned. First, I agree that the Internet has an important role. It is probable that this system cannot operate other than by means of electronic media. I would have to pause before accepting the suggestion that there is a practical need for people to physically sign up to the initiative. I wonder whether there is another way of authenticating people's validity. The suggestion that the ombudsman could examine the use of PPS numbers or driving licences is a good one.

Second, while I agree that it will be difficult to get 1 million signatures, it is right that it should be difficult. It should be difficult to get a sufficient number of people to sign up. If every crank in Europe finds a way of galvanising this scheme to his or her benefit, it will be a sure sign that it has failed. The idea that underpins the potential use of this initiative is that there is a need to facilitate people who feel so seriously about a matter that they want to do something about it. The figure that has been settled on — 1 million people — is as high as it should be. The question of attainability — whether it can be done — arises in that context. I do not doubt that many civil organisations will be able to get 1 million signatures if they galvanise themselves. I refer to bodies like Amnesty International, Stop Climate Chaos and Oxfam, for example. I could mention half a dozen organisations that have the capacity to gather 1 million signatures. The pro-life movement, which stretches across Europe, has the capacity to do something like this. This is the whole point. We cannot ask for people's engagement in our institutions, give them the capacity to do it and then complain about what might come out of it. I do not suggest that anyone is complaining. A balance needs to be struck. Many pan-European organisations are much stronger than the political parties in individual countries. If they organised themselves sufficiently, they would have the capacity to do this.

I think this is a worthwhile measure, for the reasons I have mentioned, and a challenging one. If it is to be worthwhile, it should be hard to do.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I welcome the representatives of European Movement Ireland, whose submission I have read. I apologise for my late arrival, but I was stuck at another meeting. Like my colleague, Senator Donohoe, I am most interested in the on-line element of this proposal. That is the only aspect of the matter on which I will focus. I am conscious that the delegates have heard many contributions from other members. Last Friday, the joint committee discussed this measure with Ireland's MEPs in some detail.

Like Senator Donohoe, I am concerned about the on-line element of the citizens' initiative. It was strongly advocated by "Yes" campaigners in advance of both referendums on the Lisbon treaty. While it is not contained in the treaty, many of us alluded to its potential during the debate on the treaty. I believe it is an important element of the Lisbon treaty measures. I am concerned that European Movement Ireland seems to have arrived at the conclusion that in order to show active citizenship, one must travel to a polling station or a town hall to physically register. I accept that many well-organised lobby groups and non-governmental organisations have the capacity to mobilise at least 1 million people. They could probably mobilise between 8 million and 10 million people across the Union. The beauty of this proposal is that individuals and collections of individuals, in addition to non-governmental organisations and lobby groups, will be able to come together to pursue initiatives of mutual interest. That can only happen through the Internet. This initiative should have some sort of on-line element to enable people to participate in it by actively voting on the Internet.

When we discussed this initiative with MEPs, including Proinsias De Rossa and Gay Mitchell, last Friday, I suggested that it could be administered through a Government Department in some way. Mr. De Rossa argued that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government might be the most appropriate Department. I advocate that the Department in question could work with the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the co-ordination of the scheme, in order to allow PPS numbers to be verified on-line.

We also had a discussion on the register of electors. Senator Donohoe and all my colleagues will agree that the register is in rag order in most constituencies. Unfortunately, it is not the most definitive basis on which to draw up a list of people living in a particular area at a particular time. Despite the efforts of local authorities, it has not improved. The only way to compile a reliable and up-to-date list of voters in a constituency is to use social security numbers. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should do that in advance of future elections. We need to get one or more Government Departments to use the PPS system to verify the identities of those who try to participate in the citizens' initiative on-line.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I welcome the delegates from European Movement Ireland and apologise for missing their presentation. I spoke positively about the citizens' initiative during the Lisbon treaty campaign. Many of those who feel disconnected from the EU do not think the Union is of great relevance to them. Although 1 million signatures will be needed to get an issue on the table, this is a positive measure. I am not concerned about the ability of any particular group across Europe to get 1 million signatures as that is quite possible. There are many groups across Europe that have very strong views on issues such as the financial world that affect everybody. Once the 1 million signatures that are necessary to have an issue raised in the European Parliament have been collected, what will the Parliament do? That is what concerns me. If nothing happens as a result of the campaign, we will alienate a great many people and this will weaken the Lisbon treaty. Having campaigned successfully on an issue, and raised people's expectations, can we be assured that the issue will be treated with the seriousness deserved by the 1 million people who put their signature to the citizens' initiative?

Deputy Noel Treacy

I welcome the director and delegates from European Movement Ireland. I pay tribute to the movement for its contribution to the evolution of the European Union. It has been a significant pioneer in communicating the message to citizens and garnering support for the European Union. European Movement Ireland had a positive impact on the outcome of the Lisbon treaty referendum.

I endorse the remarks of my colleagues. I regret that I was unable to be present at the start of the meeting because of another commitment. I promoted the citizens' initiative during the referendum campaign as a tool that gives ownership to citizens. However, campaigns under the citizens' initiative must be sustainable and have identifiable issues that have the gravity that is vital to ensure that changes are made. I agree with Senator de Búrca that there is nothing wrong with lowering the age of signatories to 16 years as that would be good for politics. However, it is important that at least 50% of those signing the citizens' initiative must be on the electoral register.

We cannot allow the initiative to subvert the political system. While citizens should be able to take the initiative and drive it to the best of their ability to get a hearing and to reach a conclusion, it is important that members elected to the European Parliament should be informed about the content of petitions lodged by the citizens from their member states and the outcome of the initiatives. This will ensure that democracy is utilised to the maximum. It is important that all bodies with links to the European Union are utilised as vehicles for giving legitimacy to the initiative if it meets certain criteria. We should be able to co-operate in that way and ensure that citizens know where they can go to sign a document for the citizens' initiative. It should also be possible to sign on line subject to proper validation. There are opportunities for citizens both individually and collectively to have some influence on the evolution of the European Union, which should help to make it more relevant to people.

Chairman

The response from committee members is in concert with the discussions we have had already in the course of the debate on the citizens' initiative. We must make the citizens' initiative work, and all members are at one on that. The procedures must be adequate to reflect the original intention.

Registration can be done best through the post office with the possible use of PPS numbers, but this may cause difficulty for those who have concerns about data protection. A PPS number does not necessary mean that the person is in the State or in a European Union country at the time but when it is married to the post office, this is a means of cross-checking as it has daily deliveries to every home in the country.

Should a citizen have a genuine grievance, he or she has the ability to bring his or her concern to the highest level in Europe and have it dealt with. The point was well made by European Movement Ireland that adjudication by the European Ombudsman can take place as to whether a proposal merits consideration before the initiative takes place.

The proposal can be hijacked. Members know from campaigns, in particular the first and second Lisbon treaty campaigns, how unseen lobbyists have the ability to exert considerable influence on the electorate. Senator Feargal Quinn among others made the point about the possible by-passing of parliamentary democracy. We live in an era where politicians are deemed to be of the lowest order and there may be a tendency to by-pass them. Most of the people who have come to this conclusion are commentators. Commentators and politicians live by each other and at each other's expense sometimes.

I remember a case where a sizeable petition was mounted and as we could not see the merit of some aspects of it, we studied some of the signatories. We carried out a fairly thorough check at local level of one individual signatory, Rupert, who turned out to be a family pet. There is the possibility of trivialising the procedure and reducing the validity of the lobby. The weakest submission becomes the issue that determines the merit of the case. There is need for review. There is a learning curve and after a year of its operation, a means should be found to assess the degree to which it has worked in accordance with the original intention. The use of the Internet was discussed. It has positive and negative effects and we need authentication.

Senator Quinn raised the question of what consumers wanted and said they would answer with their feet. The consumer is always told what he or she should do and advertising and lobbying plays a part in that. However, consumers will eventually make up their own minds, whatever direction they are pushed in, and that is the way it should be.

We will use today's presentation in our submission and we will rely on the closing remarks, which I now invite Ms Pappin to deliver.

Ms Andrea Pappin

It may help to say how we decided on our approach. We focus on simple, realistic and practical measures rather than the better education policies or world-class health care system to which we all aspire. We wanted to work out the steps that were needed to integrate the initiative into the system and we came up with two defining criteria. One was that the Spanish Presidency wants it to be introduced before its time elapses, which gives us until the end of June. Senator Quinn spoke about "quangoism", which is ironic, because we have worked with every system there has been and are piggybacking on the current systems. We have five months and we have to introduce it now.

The second element centres on the fact that we are European Movement Ireland. The submission will go to the international network, which includes national councils across all member states and beyond. We were founded in 1954, a full 19 years before Ireland became a member state, and other countries are working on how to integrate the initiative now.

Our main submission summarises our findings and includes direct answers to every question posed by the Commission in its Green Paper. On page 14 we answer the questions from Deputy Creighton and Senator Donohoe about the use of the Internet. We would love it to be used more but, as we only have until June to get it up and running, we must work with the system we have. We see an opportunity here. I paid my television licence on-line for the first time this year and who would have thought that would be possible? The Revenue Commissioners have an on-line system and there have to be ways to do it. The Internet is finding solutions for handling secure information but Ireland does not have the option at this point. Until we work out e-voting we will have to work with more traditional methods. Perhaps it is best not to mention e-voting.

Chairman

We noted it.

Deputy Noel Treacy

Perhaps the machines could be hired again.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

The Deputy did not say that.

Ms Andrea Pappin

Perhaps it is better not to sell them this week. European Movement Ireland hopes the Internet will be used increasingly for these purposes and we give further detail on our thoughts on that issue on page 14. However, in light of the fact that the initiative will come in this year, we must be practical and work out the systems to use now.

Members asked questions about balance. The initiative is in the treaty so we must use it. We should see what we can achieve and should not throw it out. Is it the biggest thing in the treaty and will it solve all our problems? The answer is "No". However, it is an additional channel to create a greater dialogue and that is exciting. I do not see anything detrimental to the initiative unless we approach it in a disparaging and cynical way and write it off before it comes in. This is not a zero sum game. It does not involve benefit to citizens and enhancement of their empowerment to the detriment of parliamentary democracy. It is, instead, a complement to the latter.

Many of the members of this committee have answered each other's questions so I feel I am not always needed but one member asked how people would find out about it. The answer is easy — it is the responsibility of all of us, from members of the joint committee to representatives of European Movement Ireland, because we are passionate about politics and about advancing this country.

A point was raised about the semantics involved in the initiative and we might better describe it as a community initiative rather than a citizens' initiative. It has become apparent to us that NGOs and organised communities will be the first to use it and the Internet might be the solution to bringing it to the level of the citizen. Until that option is devised, however, it will be more of a measure for community engagement. It may be slightly irreverent to say so but we must not under estimate the power of the Internet. The BBC loved the fact that A Nation Once Again was the song of the century and more than 70,000 signed up to view repeatedly the poor man who fell over while the television cameras were on him recently. There is a high level of engagement and it presents an opportunity so we should not throw it out. Instead, we should manage expectations.

It is important to point out that this is not a chance to vote on something but merely a signature. It is an opportunity for our country to get younger people involved. We visit schools and colleges and use new language and educational techniques to inform young people about Europe. The majority of people in Ireland were born after 1973 and the vast majority know nothing else but membership of the EU. Our parents told us stories about what happened before that time but we all know what happens when parents tell their children stories — they discount them.

Chairman

Really?

Ms Andrea Pappin

My mum once told me that when she first received an orange she did not know what to do with it and bit into it through the peel. I had a similar moment while driving with my nieces over Dundrum crossroads and telling them that, back in my day, there had been no bridge across the road. I remember recoiling in horror as I realised what I was saying. We have to change the language we use to get people started. We need to tell people that it is like a learner permit for voting and by getting signatures we will get involved with them. We do not want to go into schools and tell young people they can get involved but only in two years' time. We should get them involved now.

Deputy Flynn asked about the text of the treaty. One of the key words is "invite" because when people send out an invitation they deserve a response. We have set out the step-by-step process by which we see that happening. Ultimately the Parliament and the Council will make the decision as to what happens while the role of the Commission is to initiate legislation. We have to build the system, trust it and see where it goes. That is the nature of democracy and, without wishing to sound trite or like Pollyanna, we have an opportunity to develop a new channel. Let us not rule it out but let us ascertain the opportunities for it. Unless there is anything else, we should manage expectations, view this initiative as an opportunity for Ireland and work out what we can do with it.

Chairman

I thank Ms Pappin. This concludes our public discussion and I thank the representatives from European Movement Ireland in particular for taking the time and trouble and for the degree to which they set about assessing the position and providing information that will be useful to the joint committee in the determination of its submission to the Commission.

Ms Andrea Pappin

I thank members for the opportunity.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.20 p.m. and adjourned at 3.40 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 February 2010.