Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Tuesday, 18 Nov 2014

Accountability Report 2013: European Movement Ireland

Chairman

We are delighted to welcome to the Public Gallery students from University College Cork, who are joining us to learn about the committee's work. We are also delighted to see the others in the Public Gallery. I remind members and our guests to switch off their mobile telephones. It is not sufficient to put them on silent mode; they must be switched off completely. Otherwise, they can interfere with the recording equipment. Today's proceedings are being broadcast live on the Internet and we do not want interference with that.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Noelle O'Connell of European Movement Ireland, EMI. She is joined by Councillor Neale Richmond, also of EMI. Ms O'Connell will address the committee on EMI's 2013 accountability report. As members know, EMI is an independent, not-for-profit, membership-based organisation that works to develop the connection between Ireland and Europe. It has published a number of accountability reports previously, tracking Ireland's engagement with the EU at a number of levels, and each year suggests areas in which improvements can be made. The report has been described as a score card on key areas of Ireland's engagement and I welcome an opportunity to discuss it. I am particularly interested in a discussion of this committee's engagement. The report examines the number of meetings that we have every year, attendance at same, whether Ministers appear before us at pre-General Affairs Council meetings, etc. The report is a useful summary of the committee's work and I look forward to discussing it.

Before commencing, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise, comment on or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on a particular subject and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They should not criticise or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Ms O'Connell to address the committee on EMI's latest accountability report.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

I thank the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs for the opportunity to present to it. I have had the pleasure of appearing before it a number of times previously and am pleased to be invited to discuss EMI's fourth accountability report, which tracked the 2013 calendar period.

As the Chairman pointed out, EMI is Ireland's longest established not-for-profit, voluntary membership-based organisation dealing with Irish-European affairs, having been founded in 1954. We celebrated our 60th birthday this year. For more than 60 years, we have strived to provide a robust, fair and reasoned voice on European matters in Ireland through increasing awareness and understanding of European issues. In keeping with our founding aims, we are committed to increasing engagement by Irish people with the EU and the promotion of transparency and accountability at Irish and European levels.

Our accountability campaign is one of our organisation's flagship advocacy programmes. Through it, we aim to measure Ireland's engagement with Europe at a number of levels, offering a comparison between Ireland's performance with that of our European counterparts and providing context in which to base the findings and evaluate the results. It is a report card on how our Government, national politicians and MEPs engage in EU affairs. It is an evolving, living project that is continually updated, as we have incorporated feedback and input from readers of the report on an ongoing basis since its inception in 2010.

Throughout 2013 we tracked 18 key indicators in four areas to measure accurately Irish engagement with the EU. Building on the previous three editions of the report, this year we utilised our growing database to expand by providing a comparative analysis of Ireland's performance in a European context over the course of four consecutive years. Time constraints today prevent me from going through in detail every finding in the 70 page report, but we will send members an updated report in due course following an internal reclassification of some of the figures.

As part of our methodology a key aspect of these 18 indicators, about which I will speak in greater detail, is that they have a statistically verifiable character. To add a caveat to the interpretation of such data, and in recognising our accountability report is not without its limitations, I will recall the words of Albert Einstein, "not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts". Through the accountability report we measure work which is on the record and publicly available, and which can be statistically verified and tracked in as timely a manner as possible. That said, much work done is not quantifiable and therefore cannot be included in our analysis, which we recognise throughout the report. In addition, as I am sure I do not have to remind distinguished members of the committee, our accountability report took place against the backdrop of an incredibly busy and productive 2013, as Ireland held the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU for the seventh time as well as 2013 being designated European year of citizens. As the report relies solely on data in the public domain, applying this health warning is a useful precaution in interpreting parliamentary and institutional statistics of the type under review, but it is not a reason to refrain from observing and commenting on the available data.

Ireland's engagement with the EU is deep, complex and multifaceted. European Movement Ireland believes strongly that our accountability work, which continues to evolve over the years, is important in shedding light on and working to explain Irish engagement at EU level. We look forward next year to presenting a five-year benchmarking fact on our accountability report findings over the five years we have tracked and measured this engagement since 2010.

For the purpose of my presentation this afternoon, our 2013 report focuses on the following four pillars which form the key chapters of the report: pre-legislative input, where we look at European commission consultations; the European Parliament; the Oireachtas; and the European Council and councils of the EU.

A total of 99 Commission consultations were initiated by the various Directorates General of the Commission, which had a closing date for submission during the 2013 calendar year. European Movement Ireland tracked all 99 and analysed the geographical origin of the submissions to establish the rate and number of Irish submissions and evaluate Irish input at the pre-legislative stage of EU policy formation. Of the 99 Commission consultations, 60 were suitable for evaluation and inclusion in the report. This is due to the fact only 60 of the 99 consultations provided information regarding the geographical origin of submissions and thus we were in a position to analyse and establish the rate of Irish submissions. In the 60 consultations we reviewed for our accountability report, the percentage of the total submissions originating in Ireland during 2013 ranged from 0% to 6.25% with an average of 1.1%. This average of 1.1% represents a decrease of 0.3% from the 2012 average of 1.4%. I apologise for the many statistics I will give to committee members this afternoon.

European Movement Ireland recommends a consistent methodology be employed throughout all Commission Directorates General for the purposes of tracking and classifying these consultation submissions and their geographical origin.

We believe this would have a significant impact on the accountability and transparency of the Commission consultation system. In fact, more accessible and thorough knowledge of the origins of these submissions might also help to increase the number of submissions by creating awareness among member states regarding their national contribution levels. With Commission consultations ranging from state aids to reforming the structure of the EU banking sector to a 2030 framework Green Paper on climate and energy policies, from an Irish perspective there is a clear opportunity to have a stronger input at this stage of the European legislative procedure. EM Ireland looks forward to playing a leading role in facilitating this enhanced engagement.

Turning to the European Parliament, complete attendance records for all MEPs is available from documentation published on the website of the European Parliament, whose records we use to measure the attendance of Irish MEPs at European Parliament plenary sessions. The individual websites of Irish MEPs and votewatch.eu were also consulted for, first, information regarding MEP roles within their political groupings and within the parliament; second, attendance at European Parliament plenary sessions; third, parliamentary questions asked; and, fourth, speeches made. However, for calculation purposes, we relied solely on information that was made public by the European Parliament.

We found that average Irish MEP attendance at plenary sessions of the European Parliament during 2013 was 93%, which represents an increase of 10% on the 2012 attendance rate of 83%. Indeed, it is the highest since we began tracking this. Irish MEPs asked a total of 384 parliamentary questions in 2013, which is a 15.6% reduction from the 455 questions raised in 2012. During 2013, Irish MEPs made a total of 890 speeches in plenary sessions of the European Parliament, an increase of 143.8% compared to the 2012 figure of 365. During 2013 there was Irish representation on 14 of the European Parliament's 20 standing committees and on the parliament's special committee. Average Irish MEP attendance at the meetings of their designated committees in 2013 was 42%, a drop from the 2012 figure of 76%.

With regard to Oireachtas engagement, throughout 2013 European Movement Ireland attended every public meeting, not private, of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. Attendance at these meetings was tracked by the EM Ireland staff member in attendance, who also drafted a summary report of the committee's discussion for circulation. Official committee reports available from the Oireachtas website were also reviewed. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs met 35 times in public during 2013, with the average attendance rate of committee members at 56%. This represents a decrease of 8% from the 2012 attendance rate of 64%. Obviously, committee attendance is calculated on a composite average basis, which tends to skew the figures somewhat in terms of some members' attendance at this committee. I thank and pay tribute to the members for attending this meeting today.

According to the programme for Government, Ministers are obliged to appear before their respective committees or before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs prior to travelling to Brussels for meetings of the Council of the EU, where decisions are made. For the 2013 accountability report, we examined the minutes of all Oireachtas committee meetings that took place in 2013 to establish whether and when pre and post-Council briefings took place. Pre or post-Council briefings took place in respect of eight of the ten General Affairs Council, GAC, meetings that took place in 2013, which represents a total of 80% and an increase of 16% on the 2012 rate of 64%. Of the 71 Council meetings that took place during 2013, some 33 or 46% had pre or post-Council briefings before the relevant Oireachtas committee.

Attendance by Irish representatives and by representatives of other EU member states at 2013 meetings of the European Council and the various formations of the Council of the European Union, was tracked using the official attendance lists of each of these Council meetings. These lists are made available as part of the Council press release and are published online following the conclusion of these meetings. This information is also regularly released on the website of the Council of the European Union.

The Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, attended all the European Council meetings which took place throughout 2013 and this 100% attendance rate has been consistent since the first European Movement Ireland accountability report in 2010. The average Irish ministerial attendance rate at 2013 meetings of the Council of the European Union was 99% which is an increase of 2% on 2012, where the Irish ministerial attendance was 97%. Last year is the highest Irish ministerial attendance rate since European Movement Ireland began tracking this engagement in its inaugural 2010 accountability report. Ireland ranked joint first alongside Greece and Lithuania in terms of average ministerial attendance at meetings of the EU Council in 2013. While we cannot speculate too deeply into the reasons behind some of the comparative shifts in the indicators, it is worth noting that in the first half of 2013, as I mentioned previously, Ireland held the rotating Presidency of the EU Council, which may have played a part in Ireland having overall best attendance record at meetings of the European Council and Councils of the EU throughout 3013, alongside our fellow Presidency partners of Greece and Lithuania.

One of the principal aims of European Movement Ireland is to facilitate debate and to provide information on the Irish EU relationship. This report does this by analysing the level of transparency and accountability at both national and European level so that Irish citizens have an opportunity to see how we are being represented in Europe by our elected officials.

As we publish this report during 2014 it would be remiss of me not to mention briefly the recent May 2014 European Parliament elections. As the distinguished members of this committee will no doubt be aware, voter turnout in those European Parliament elections was 52.4%, down from 58.6% in 2009. This means that for whatever reason approximately 1.5 million voters here did not give a mandate to our elected representatives in Europe. This is not a surprise but we should be worried about it. Membership of the European Union, while not without its faults, has generally been positive for Ireland. Social progress such as the ending of the marriage bar and the decriminalisation of homosexuality, along with far-reaching protections for consumers and the right for us as EU citizens to travel, study, live and work freely in other member states, can sometimes pale in recollection.

European Movement Ireland believes that our society needs a broad and dynamic discussion about our place in the European Union, one which recognises that we can and should be the authors of our own destiny in Europe. European Movement Ireland's accountability report, which we are very pleased to present before this committee, offers a way of scrutinising some of the dimensions of this crucial relationship, now and in the future.

I thank the Chairman and members for inviting us to present our 2013 report. We look forward to dealing with comments and questions from members of the committee.

Chairman

I thank Ms O'Connell for a very comprehensive introduction to the annual report. I agree with her that we need a discussion about Ireland's role within Europe. It was very disturbing to see the turnout rate for the European elections dropping to just over 50% and the election was held on the same day as the local elections. I note that the turnout rate across Europe was lower still and below 20% in some countries. Therefore, the problem is not unique to Ireland but we need to have a debate about how to ensure a greater level of involvement by citizens in European affairs.

The UCC European Society will be joining the committee in private session after this meeting. We hope to discuss the issue of engagement and involvement in Europe by young people in particular.

We have been a member of the European Union for 40 years and many of us - many of the new generation - take for granted the benefits that have emanated from our membership. Freedom of movement is seen as something that was always there, but it was not. It only became available through our membership of the European Union. It would be useful to talk later to our guests about that.

Is this accountability report an exercise done by the European Movement in other European countries? If not, why not? If so, how do we compare with other countries? Is there a type of league table of who is good and who is not so good at European involvement?

I call Deputy Eric Byrne, followed by Deputy Kyne, and Senators Colm Burke and Hayden.

Deputy Eric Byrne

I thank Ms O'Connell for her presentation. I always find it rather interesting. I hope I do not repeat my questions of last year. It is noteworthy that European Movement Ireland is an independent organisation. I will play devil's advocate. How do we know it is independent? It has a private membership system. We do not know who the members are or how many there are. Ms O'Connell could be speaking to us on behalf of an organisation that has a grand sounding name but might have ten members.

I applaud Ms O'Connell on saying that European Movement Ireland looks forward to playing a leading role in facilitating this enhanced engagement with NGOs, unions, parliamentarians, etc. As a parliamentarian, I have been intimately involved in trying to research a trade agreement involving the EU, Colombia and Peru. It involves considerable research with much mystery over how we, as parliamentarians, engage with the issues that are being initiated by the Commission and on which we, as a nation, must ultimately sign off. I have a particular interest in the Colombian end of the thing; we do not know anything about Peru. We are waiting for Ireland to ratify it, but before ratifying it I have many questions to ask.

This committee has debated with professionals the very important issue of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I remember being rather surprised that the presentation we got was being presented to us as wonderfully exciting and progressive and that Ireland should support it. The report we were presented with, however, was produced by the London School of Economics, if my memory serves me right. I would never castigate that institution - my daughter went to the London School of Economics and it is a wonderful college - and I would not question its figures. However, does Ms O'Connell believe it is right to present to parliaments a singular opinion on the benefits of TTIP? Does European Movement Ireland play a role in facilitating the debate on such trade agreements?

The figures are fantastically exciting. We emigrate so much and travel so much - our Ministers love to travel - hence the 99% attendance record. If those figures are analysed, however, there is one bold boy who basically drags down the status of the other Ministers. I note the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government only has a 75% attendance whereas every other Minister was in attendance 100% of the time. Rather than saying that the average attendance was 99%, which denigrates the Ministers who were there 100% of the time, it might have been important to state that one Minister let the side down by not being in attendance 100% of the time.

Chairman

In the same manner, rather than cite the attendance at this committee as being 54% - I am looking at familiar faces today - it might be useful to cite the attendance rates of individuals, which might help to encourage attendance.

Deputy Eric Byrne

That is the problem with you in the Chair and me on the sidelines. You have stolen my next question.

Chairman

I am sorry.

Deputy Eric Byrne

Those Ministers with 75% to 100% attendance rates should be applauded. The majority of members of this committee have excellent attendance rates. Does the delegation not feel disappointed that Ireland shows, sadly, a 55% attendance rate, given the importance of Europe and role of the European Movement Ireland in explaining and engaging with the broad masses on it?

The electorate voted for the European fiscal treaty, which means inhibiting factors are now built into annual national budgets. With the debate now on the water charge issue, people are asking why it has to be off the books and so forth. Why are the treaty’s implications not fully understood by the majority? Is this the fault of parliamentarians, the Government or Europe?

Deputy Seán Kyne

I welcome Ms Noelle O'Connell and Mr. Neale Richmond and commend them on their oversight report on the Oireachtas and our Ministers abroad.

European Movement Ireland recommends a consistent methodology for this tracking and analysis? How does it hope it will be implemented? Are different trends in the engagement of established member states and newer member states from the former eastern bloc with EU institutions emerging? How does Ireland compare with other member states when it comes to EU engagement? The number of parliamentary questions from Ireland’s MEPs, some 384, seems low. Are there other easier methods to gain information that they might use?

Committee attendance is a difficult one. This committee’s meetings often clash with those of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation of which I am a member. The Taoiseach and other Ministers put a significant effort into attending European meetings. In the past, there was a view that previous Administrations had a lack of interest in attending European meetings and this Government had much to do in rebuilding Ireland’s reputation in this regard.

Chairman

I agree it does not seem to be a significant number of parliamentary questions from our MEPs. It comes to 384 from 12 MEPs. Deputy Durkan probably asked more in the Dáil in the past year alone.

Senator Colm Burke

It might be helpful if the procedures for asking questions at the European Parliament were explained. It is not the same as it is in the Oireachtas.

It would be helpful to include an explanation regarding the procedures because it is not the case that one can ask a question every week and it would be helpful to clarify that.

As for the second issue regarding attendance at meetings and as someone who served on three or four different joint committees, one thing one must do - this is the record of the European Parliament - is physically to sign the book each time one attends a committee meeting. In any one day, it would not be unusual to have anything up to ten to 15 different meetings during the course of the day from 9 a.m. onwards. Moreover, when the Parliament is sitting in Strasbourg, it sits until midnight. This is not simple and incidentally, if one does not have a set number of attendances at committee meetings, one is not entitled to speaking time in Parliament, that is, to be listed as one of the speakers in Parliament on a particular topic. Consequently, one must keep a record of committee attendances. While Ms Noelle O'Connell will be able to give the joint committee more details on how this works, it is an issue. There are repercussions arising from not having attendances at meetings and it is important to clarify this point.

As for the 56% attendance at meetings, the big problem members have from a European point of view is the number of committees that exist and one should remember there are sub-committees within committees. For instance, in the case of foreign affairs, there also is the human rights sub-committee. Another issue that is not included concerns the number of motions that members can put down. That figure is not included but it is useful information as it is an effective method. On the human rights sub-committee, for instance, one can table emergency motions. I remember the very first motion I signed back in 2007 was about the opening up of the entire government procedure in Burma or Myanmar, as it is now. Little did I think that within five years, the very motion we had put to the Parliament in 2007 would actually come true in real terms. Such motions had and continue to have fairly substantial consequences internationally. Likewise, I was involved in a number of motions pertaining to Gaza and similar areas.

I refer to one issue on which the report is interesting and on which it contains much useful information. I am unsure whether European Movement Ireland wishes to consider the issue regarding European Union directives, about which I have a major concern. Once they are passed and signed off at European level, the timescale given to Oireachtas Members to implement them is 30 months from that point. Has Ireland's record in respect of transposing them and putting them into operation here ever been considered? For instance, I am concerned about one such directive, in which I was directly involved, pertaining to cross-border health care. It finally was signed off in February 2011 but it now is 2014 and my understanding is that it still has not been processed through the system here. We are leaving ourselves open in this regard. To explain to the Chairman, this pertains to cross-border health care, that is, the right to travel to another member state for health care if such health care is not available in one's own country or if there is undue delay. It is an extremely important directive and is about making sure that people have access to health care right across Europe. While it is an important directive, this is about the monitoring of Ireland's own performance with regard to following through on directives and that also would be useful from this committee's perspective. What is Ireland's record in this regard? What is the timescale for the average directive or regulation to come through the Irish system? This is a subject that members might consider in the long term.

Senator Aideen Hayden

First, I thank the witnesses for their report and I am glad that at its very outset they made the distinction between a quantitative analysis, of that which can be quantified, rather than a qualitative analysis. For example, I was struck by the high level of attendance at 93%. Did the witnesses ever track how many people went into a meeting and remained there for its entirety, as opposed to going in, registering their attendance and then leaving? That would be my concern. This obviously is something the European Movement has been doing for four years.

To what extent are people playing the witnesses' game, so to speak, by registering their presence?

The witnesses referred to attendance. Is that attendance and voting because I understand voting takes place in a bloc? Do they track the voting records as well as the attendance records?

Regarding speeches, if I understand correctly, the average European Union parliamentary speech is one minute. We need to be clear about what we are talking about when it comes to quantity and quality.

I was more interested in some of the other figures. The number of Irish rapporteurs, for example, is quite good at six in comparison with one in 2010. The number of opinions by Irish rapporteurs went from nine in 2010 down to three, and has been consistently low for the past number of years. What is the reason for that?

My colleague, Senator Burke, raised what I would call the dramatic drop in attendance at parliamentary committees from 76% to 42%. That is more a qualitative indicator. My memory of the European Parliament and parliamentary committees is that parliamentary committees take more engagement than plenary sessions. Have the witnesses examined the reason that would have been the case in terms of the drop in attendance at the parliamentary committees?

In terms of a qualitative-quantitative approach, have the witnesses done what I would call more soft data analysis of the statistics? For example, regarding the performance of MEPs, do they track their engagement with media? Do they track, in so far as they can, their engagement with the public, in other words, any public meetings they may hold? Do they give them the facility to give them that type of information? Do they invite them to give them that type of information? It would be very interesting to know not the 93% of them who can come in and press a button and register their attendance but how they are engaging with their electorate, and the methods they are using to engage with their electorate. For example, to what extent has the use of social media changed since the witnesses started tracking these data?

Taking a more broad-based approach, as the witnesses did towards the end of their presentation, about the values of Europe to the citizen, to what extent do they believe there may be a certain disenchantment with the slow progress we are making on social Europe and in particular the extent to which people are fatigued by austerity?

The witnesses are commenting on the drop in the number of people voting in EU elections. Again, to what extent is that to do with the rapid pace of enlargement and the fact that people cannot, for the sake of argument, name all 28 members of the Union? Also, to what extent do the witnesses think the growth of, say, euroscepticism in the United Kingdom and the wider debate on whether the UK will remain a member of the Union is having an effect on the broader enthusiasm for the European project in Ireland?

Deputy Seán Crowe

To follow up on the input from other members, the witnesses said the accountability campaign is one of their flagship advocacy programmes. If we look at any statistics on that we could balance them either way. The difficulty with all of this is that people become defensive and say they have a reason they were not there and so on. I am probably one of the worst attenders at these meetings but I can look at myself in the mirror and justify where I am in that regard. I am not swanning off somewhere else. I may be at another meeting or whatever but when I do come along to the meetings, I try to have an input into them. That is the important part of what we are doing here.

People would tell me that they do not see me attending Leaders' Questions but one might be at a Good Friday Agreement committee meeting, a foreign affairs committee meeting or some other meeting.

People say when one is not present that one must not be doing anything. That feeds into the negativity people have towards politicians in that regard.

There is a pattern of people staying away from elections. It is not just the election to the European Parliament, it was the same with the local elections and the by-elections. A pattern is emerging in that regard.

Reference was made to the attendance of the Taoiseach and other Ministers at pre-European Council meetings. We have pre-Council meetings and post-Council meetings. The format is that the Taoiseach makes a speech and then the Opposition leaders and perhaps a Minister of State. When Deputy Eamon Gilmore was Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, he summarised matters. That is the current format, but one could ask whether it is making the process more-----

Chairman

I apologise for interrupting the Deputy but perhaps he would wait for the telephone that is ringing to be turned off as it could interfere with his contribution.

Deputy Seán Crowe

I wonder if that makes the process more accountable. The Government represents the consensus within Parliament rather than the views of one party or another. Part of the process involves engagement with the Leader of the Opposition and other spokespersons. We do not have the same engagement in the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs in terms of the Taoiseach and members exchanging views on before and after the Council meetings. Perhaps that is something that could be considered. In other parliaments throughout the European Union one has such engagement and in some cases even direction coming from the committees on European affairs or foreign affairs. I accept the systems are different but the mechanism should involve much more engagement. It is important for us to beef up the engagement that takes place. I do not say we do not have any interaction but it could be broadened.

The election of European Union Commissioners must be transparent. People perceive there to be a democratic deficit and are disillusioned with the system. The manner in which we select the Commissioner could be examined. The European Parliament brings Commissioners in and questions them, but we do not have such a mechanism. One could argue that even if the issue were put to a vote, given the Government’s majority the outcome would be a foregone conclusion. However, there should be a mechanism involving engagement with the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs or the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. That would promote accountability and transparency and be a much more inclusive process.

Those are some of the impressions I got from reading the report. There is much that we can do. In terms of accountability we always fall back on the position that we are not happy with the scrutiny of matters coming from Europe. That is something we tried to improve in terms of this committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. However, we would all accept that we can improve on it. I would welcome much more engagement from groups and others who attend such meetings and who have a view on how we could improve our system of accountability in terms of how the system operates.

I can envisage journalists already writing that so-and-so does not attend certain meetings. It does not make much difference. When we were councillors there was criticism about people attending conferences. People turned up for the day and signed in. They were at the meeting, mar dhea. What is important is the quality of input at meetings. In fairness, no one of whom I am aware who is a member of a committee does not make an input. There is engagement from everyone. One could criticise Parliament for lack of engagement but people have their own style in terms of how they engage or operate.

There has been talk with regard to public relations and other elements. That is all part of the package we need to deliver as parliamentarians. In the context of that broader work, it would be helpful if people had a sense of exactly what Irish and other European parliamentarians do.

Chairman

I call Deputy Durkan.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I must keep an eye on the monitor as I will have to leave to go to the Dáil shortly. I thank our guests for coming before us and giving us their usual report on the respective activities. There are a number of points we need to keep in mind in the context of this country's situation vis-à-vis many of our European colleagues. We probably have the most tested democratic system of voting of any European country. Only Australia has a more intricate voting system of proportional representation, which is the ultimate in terms of democracy because everybody has an opportunity to voice their opinion and their second, third, fourth, fifth and tenth opinion, if necessary. That does not apply in other countries where they have varying lists of systems to which they refer as time goes by.

In terms of how we manage the time available, I have no experience of the European Parliament but I am sure it probably organises its schedule of meetings in such as way as to ensure that three or four of them are not scheduled at the same time, which, unfortunately can occur in the scheduling of committees of these Houses, which results in our being expected to be in three or four places at the same time. Two consequences emanate from that. One is that it is impossible to give adequate consideration to the subject matter under discussion and the second is that Members find it intensely frustrating to have to move in two or three directions at the same time. As in the case of the European Parliament, it is not unusual for these Houses to have 15 or 20 meetings scheduled in the course of a day, which Members are supposed to attend but they find themselves being dragged in varying directions and it distorts their interests at a particular time.

We can talk ourselves to death in the context of debate but we need to ask ourselves are we making progress and achieving a result in line with our objectives. There are more opportunities now for discussion in national parliaments throughout Europe through the various committees than there have ever been in the history of Europe and yet there is a growing degree of Euroscepticism. During the course of Ms O'Connell's examination has she identified what might be a contributory factor to the growing degree of Eurospecticism? My colleague prompted an interesting question when he referred to the European fiscal stability treaty referendum, which our people supported, thereby giving a mandate to the country to adopt a particular stance which subsequently has often been questioned. That prompts the question: of what are we in favour? Do we create confusion, are we an enigma in the sense that we decide one thing today and maybe something different tomorrow or, to what extent, has Ms O'Connell been able to identify a lack of connectivity and continuity in our thinking and theory as a nation with respect to the European institutions?

Different countries have different systems but I believe our system is the best. I firmly believe ours is the most democratic system; it cannot be beaten. It is counterbalanced all the way along the line by proportional representation. The question that arises is: how do we view other national committees and their influence on the European Parliament? We had a visit of the Swedish parliamentary delegation and Swedes direct their delegations and Ministers. That is the way their system works. They are entitled to have that system but I do not agree with it and I believe ours is a better one.

We charge our Ministers and elected representatives to the House of Parliament with the responsibility of pursuing a particular programme. They are accountable afterwards if they do not do what they said they would do in that context. To what extent have comparisons been made of the extent to which EU member states relate to the European institutions and vice versa and how does Ireland compare in terms of public perception of those institutions?

Deputy Joe O'Reilly

I welcome our guests and thank them for the report, which is extraordinarily positive. Chapter 3 is particularly relevant in an Irish context. It should be highlighted and emphasised that the average Irish ministerial attendance at 2013 meetings of the Council of the European Union was 99%. Ireland is joint first with Greece and Lithuania in this regard. Also, 39 out of ten Council configurations had an Irish ministerial attendance rate of 100%. The Taoiseach attended all of the meetings of the European Council which took place in 2013. That is an extraordinary result, with which we should be very happy and proud of. As a Government Deputy, I am very happy that our commitment in this regard has been delivered.

I agree with Deputy Durkan's comments in regard to our system being preferable to that of other countries, representatives of which are confined by parliamentary or committee decisions. While they should take cognisance of those decisions, they should not be conclusively bound by them. The performance of our MEPs is very heartening. The average attendance of our MEPs, who represent all political groupings, at plenary sessions of the European Parliament during 2013 was 93%, and during 2013 they asked 384 parliamentary questions. While that is a slight decrease in the number of questions asked in 2012 it is still a substantive number. There was also a 143% increase in the number of speeches made by Irish MEPs. The cynical interpretation might be that an election was imminent. Despite this and cynicism aside, performance levels, measured against any objective criteria, are high. That is good.

Oireachtas input is also good. The less than stellar attendance at this committee can be reflected in the fact that responsibility for European scrutiny has transferred to the sectoral committees. This means that where issues arising out of directives or European legislation impact on one's constituency or a particular sector of the economy one is more likely to go to the sectoral committee to have it addressed. This committee tends to have a more abstract quality now, albeit very relevant.

Like Deputy Durkan, I will have to leave the meeting soon. While I hope to return later I will also read the transcript of today's committee proceedings in terms of witnesses' responses. I was taken by the comment that we do not have enough popular engagement around the country in terms of public meetings. A mutual friend of Councillor Richmond and I, who is a particular opponent of this process and who achieves much in his sphere of influence, regularly holds meetings about Europe, including meetings to commemorate European Day etc. I am interested in hearing how the witnesses think we could popularise Europe, including through the use of the town hall meeting concept and so on. Getting people at local level engaged is a challenge. I suspect it is a challenge in every European country. That is the only critique of the report which I believe is worth looking at.

Otherwise, I see the report as great news. I prefer a situation where we have a PR system in Ireland and a multi-seat constituency, albeit with its own difficulties. Senator Reilly and I compete - it is friendly competition - in one of those situations. However, that is preferable to a list system where some great mandarins and some centralist bureaucracy in Dublin decide who will represent the constituencies. It is much better that it is organic and generic, that it comes up from the people and that the people decide, albeit with the limitations of our system. Deputy Durkan is right. We have the best democratic system in Europe.

I am delighted with the performance of our Ministers and our Taoiseach. The performances of our MEPs across the board - of all parties - are stellar also and we should be proud of them. I am also happy with the make-up of our committee given the limitation I pointed out and given the other limitations. I do take the criticism as valid and I am interested in direction, assistance and advice on how we might address the issue of town hall involvement and public meetings discussing European issues.

Chairman

Thank you, Deputy O'Reilly. I now call Ms Noelle O'Connell. There was quite a lot of comment and a number of questions. Bearing in mind we have another meeting and our presenter is present, can we keep the contribution to five or seven minutes? If it is not possible to get through anything, we will take it as written evidence later.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

Thank you, Chairman. I will go through the questions as comprehensively as I can and given the time restraints. I am happy to follow up, in greater detail, with members individually in due course.

The Chairman asked whether the accountability report is done by other European movements or other organisations. As far as we are aware, we are the only European movement association out of the 40 or so that are in existence that is doing such a report. However, the University of Gothenburg in Sweden does something similar. We are tracking our accountability report, primarily focusing on Irish engagement. We are the only body here doing this since 2010. It is something in which our fellow colleagues in our different European movements are very interested. As of this date, no other European movement -----

Chairman

Are you saying this as a matter of course?

Ms Noelle O'Connell

Yes

Chairman

Therefore, they are aware of it.

Ms Noelle O'Connell

They are aware of it. There are different sizes. Some of them are staffed by volunteers. Others are like ourselves; they are like an executive. However, it varies. We are very proud of the accountability report and we are continuing to develop it as I mentioned as we benchmark it next year for five years' work and research.

I thank Deputy Byrne for his questions. He mentioned our membership in terms of our organisation and this is an excellent question. The organisation was founded in 1954. We have members who are students. I wish to pay special tribute to the Europa Society from UCC. I was a very active member, back in the day, as a UCC student. I wish to congratulate the society on its excellent conference in UCC last week. We were delighted to be involved in it. We are not secretive about our membership. It ranges from individuals, students, NGOs, public representatives, SMEs, and corporates to multinationals - people who believe we need a robust debate about Ireland's place in Europe and that we as an organisation serve an important role in that. I am pleased to confirm that we have, thankfully, more than ten members. If one looks at our website, we list and go through this in our accounts and our annual report goes into this in greater detail.

The TTIP and the trade agreements Deputy Byrne mentioned are a key focus and aspect of our work programme for this year. We have organised two conferences on TTIP. The trade agreements that the EU is engaged in are hugely important. We see our role very much as facilitating debate and engagement at these events. For example, Deputy Breen spoke at one of the events. The former US Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade also spoke at one of those events. Catherine Day, Secretary General of the European Commission, spoke as well. It is correct that we need to have more debate and dialogue and we are very strongly of the view that needs to take place.

We are working very hard to promote and encourage it.

Deputy Byrne referred to the ministerial attendance rate and it was picked up by some of the other speakers and by Deputy McHugh. We mention in the report that the particular environmental Council meeting clashed with the day of the budget but that Council meeting was attended by senior officials from the permanent representation.

Senator Hayden touched on the point about attendance at Oireachtas committee meetings. We do not individualise the attendance at Oireachtas committee meetings; it is not our role but we study it. As I mentioned in the reply to questions and as Deputy Durkan outlined, we are very aware of the challenges and the workload and time constraints on Members. For example, Deputy Kyne has indicated that he must leave to attend another meeting. We are cognisant of the challenges on Members' time.

On the fiscal treaty, as the Chairman is aware we were very pleased to have an opportunity to present a submission on behalf of our organisation to the fiscal stability treaty. We presented our report to the members of this committee. I agree with Deputy Byrne that it is a challenge. For our sins, we tried to summarise in two pages, in as concise and jargon-free language as possible, to explain the debt to GDP deficit ratios and golden break rules. It is not an easy task. As an organisation committed to communicating Europe and the EU in plain English, it is a challenge and one which we recognise.

Deputy Kyne asked a very good question about a topic we mention in all our four reports, the consistent methodology in terms of the European Commission and the geographical origins. We submit this report to the European Commission annually. We were pleased this year to put our money where our mouth is, so to speak, by submitting a Commission consultation. We replied by the end of September on the European Commission's Commission consultation on the whole process. We were able to give the recommendation to include the geographical origin and to have a consistent e-mail address for all the Commission consultations because what happens on occasion is that the e-mail address is disbanded after a certain number of weeks. This recommendation will help to increase usage, engagement and accessibility on the part of citizens, trade unions, business groups, etc.

On the question about the list system and how we compare with other EU countries, what I like about having the opportunity to make a presentation to this committee is that as we continue to mention every year, this is an organic evolving project and programme. It is only by engaging with people such as members of this committee and hearing their input and feedback that we are able to develop, expand and incorporate those recommendations and broaden out the report. Every year we look at the four key pillars which we have outlined today. We also take on board recommendations and feedback as to whether we should be looking at more. To be completely frank and honest, 2013 was an incredibly busy year for all of us and we decided to make our report more concise and more focused for that year.

Senator Burke's questions and comments on the European Parliament are really welcome, as he has been an MEP. We continue to engage with the MEPs. They have outlined to us that on occasions it can take up to six weeks for an MEP to get an answer to a parliamentary question. I am sure Senator Burke will bear this out. They have told us that in most cases it is easier to pick up the phone to the relevant official. We recognise the limits of looking at the hard data in this regard. In reply to Senator Hayden, in terms of the increase in the number of reports by the Irish MEPs and rapporteurs and by the European directors, we would really welcome the opportunity to contribute to any discussions or debates by this committee on European issues.

To answer Senator Hayden's point about signing in. We are a small, lean organisation. We do not have any staff in Brussels and we have not mastered the art of bi-location and being physically present at any of the committees in Brussels. We can only report on what is on the record and publicly available.

The reports depend on the level of engagement with the political groups and the various reports. We track and analyse what is publicly available. We do seek to engage but we do recognise the qualitative soft data analysis. In terms of the disenchantment and disengagement that all the speakers touched upon, that is a challenge. Last year we commissioned Red C to carry out an independent poll analysing Irish sentiment towards the EU at the start of 2013. Over 80% of the findings were very positive but notwithstanding that there are challenges. We can never take it for granted and we need to work on ensuring that level of engagement and dialogue. Euroscepticism is growing but for us the decline in voter turnout at the local and European Parliament elections is worrying. As an organisation trying to promote engagement, debate and dialogue we did not welcome that statistic. It is incumbent on all of us as a civil society organisation and the elected representatives to increase that engagement.

We welcome the engagement with Ministers at this committee. It is an important opportunity. We do not individualise Oireachtas committee members' or MEPs’ attendance. It is not for us to decide the qualitative input. We recognise the limits to the report but we still believe the exercise is valid and important in shining a light on the work of the committee, the MEPs, the Government and Ministers.

In response to Deputy Durkan, we could consider how this committee compares with other national committees. Malta is the only other EU member state with the proportional representation single transferable vote system. The Eurobarometer reports give a good comparison of sentiment across the different EU member states.

The increasing number of speeches is tied to the increasing number of reports published by our Irish MEPs and the rapporteurs and the popular engagement around the country. I am sure the Chairman knows from his work in support of the Blue Star programme that the European Movement Ireland is pleased to be the national implementation body for that organisation. Over 160 schools are taking part this year. Over 16,000 pupils throughout the country have participated and continue to participate in this programme. It is a really important part of that engagement debate. Last year, as European Year of the Citizens and during the Irish Presidency, European Movement Ireland ran a series of regional town hall debates around the country. We were in Galway, Cork, Limerick, Naas and Wexford. That is a very important aspect of what we do and we are committed to doing it for the future. I apologise for that whistlestop tour.

Chairman

I apologise for rushing Ms O’Connell. Her answers to the various questions were very comprehensive. If she feels she has not answered anything satisfactorily she may send in a written submission and we will make sure that it is circulated to committee members.

On behalf of the members I thank Ms O’Connell and Mr. Richmond for their contributions today. We look forward to hearing from them again next year at what has become an annual event for us.

Sitting suspended at 3.20 p.m. and resumed at 3.24 p.m.