Mr. John O'Brennan:

On the question of the move of European affairs from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Department of the Taoiseach, it is reflective of the wider environment in Europe where departments of the executive in general, and particularly, Prime Ministers offices, have been more empowered at the expense usually of foreign ministries over time. I do not think the Irish context is that unique. Prime Ministers have become more assertive within the EU process, perhaps for good reason in the context of the economic crisis and the task of managing it in the immediate timeframes. There was always a delicate balance in the Irish context between the Departments of Finance and Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Taoiseach's office was a latter day arrival in some senses, in terms of the relative roles played by all three. It is far too early to say what the implications will be in the longer run, for the efficiency of our policies and how they are pursued. It can be argued that the Presidency which, as Mr. Connelly has said, has been universally viewed as a success, suggests that there is more continuity than change. In other words, as the previous Irish Presidencies were successful, the dynamics of last year's one was very similar. That suggests it certainly has not been a negative thing.

There is some confusion, however, particularly about websites. This morning I went to look at the website of this committee and it gave last year's website so that I was looking at early 2013 material instead of this year's material. That was also the case when the European affairs unit moved to the Department of the Taoiseach. There was much confusion for the outside world.

There are elements of the architecture that could work better. In terms of the substantive issues, it is probably too early to say, but it is certainly not negative.