Ms Emily O'Reilly:

I thank the committee for the kind welcome and the opportunity to address the committee this afternoon on an issue that is already a major talking point in Brussels and which is now coming sharply into focus across every EU member state, the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, negotiations with the US. I am aware that this committee has been monitoring the ongoing negotiations for a considerable period and that it has heard from many experts and interested parties. It has clearly recognised the vital role it plays in understanding and communicating what will undeniably be a complex agreement when it emerges. The committee heard just last week from EU trade Commissioner Malmström about the current state of play of the negotiations. As an independent institution, I have no position for or against TTIP but what I would like to share today is my view of the current state of the transparency of the negotiations, and it was clear from questioning of the commissioner last week that this is a critical issue also for the committee.

Neither side of the debate around this issue disputes that its consequences will be significant for all of us and it is therefore vital that the public is made fully aware of what is involved in these talks and preferably long before the time comes for EU parliaments and the EU Parliament to vote in the event of a draft agreement being reached. This has been my focus since I launched an inquiry into this matter in July of last year. The TTIP inquiry was part of a series of strategic inquiries I opened proactively in the second half of 2014. Others covered the EU's Cohesion Fund policy, the transparency commitments of the European Medicines Agency, the independence and balance of the expert groups that advise on EU legislation and issues around the forced return of irregular migrants.

As the committee knows, TTIP is heralded as a potential game-changer, the biggest bilateral free trade agreement in history, a deal of geostrategic importance and one that may set the standard for future regional and global trade agreements. In its most ambitious form, the TTIP agreement could result in a transatlantic single market, with binding rules in a wide range of areas. Given the potential impact of TTIP on the lives of 500 million European citizens, I decided to focus my attention on how this trade deal is being negotiated, while recognising the special democratic responsibility of elected representatives at European and national levels in scrutinising the negotiations on behalf of their constituents. I should point out how active MEPs have been in seeking to assert their rights of scrutiny and I commend this committee on its increasing involvement and vigilance also in this regard.

Transparency is vital in this area, no matter what view is taken of TTIP. Transparency promotes public trust and shows that there is nothing to hide. Some TTIP champions are concerned that the debate has been marred by misinformation and that people should decide based on the facts. It stands to reason, therefore, that the public should be given the facts by giving them access to the documents that contain them. Transparency makes for informed debate and an informed debate is vital if these talks are to enjoy legitimacy. Transparency also makes good practical sense. An informed debate should lead to a better agreement in substance. As the European Commission has made more and more documents available, the TTIP debate has been increasingly focused on the substance of the agreement. This is as it should be. The more transparent the negotiations are, the more the public, stakeholders and experts will be able to provide meaningful input.

Proactive transparency makes even better practical sense. I have been calling on the Commission to make as much information and as many documents as possible available proactively. We should not wait for people to ask for them, and if we are to give access to a document, it should be done sooner rather than later. The public wants to see these documents. Citizens are increasingly aware that TTIP could produce rules that impact on them in a manner analogous to how legislation impacts on them. They are keenly aware of the impact this agreement will have. I am not, of course, calling for absolute transparency. The Commission needs to create a context in which it can negotiate effectively with the US on TTIP, so as to deliver the best possible deal for the Union and its citizens. This may mean that the Commission can legitimately keep confidential certain information and documents, at least during certain stages of the negotiations. However, exceptions to the general principle of disclosure must be properly explained and justified.

The Commission has responded well to my inquiry. A great and increasing number of fact sheets, position papers, meeting agendas and other items are now freely available online and it is clear that the new Commission has correctly intuited that without the maximum possible transparency, the struggle to complete and ratify the trade deal will be immeasurably more difficult. Transparency is not an abstract ideal; it is a simple business imperative. I have commended the efforts it has made to make these talks transparent and accessible and I acknowledge that we are moving out of an era when traditional methods of conducting international trade negotiations are characterised by confidentiality and limited public participation. Well over a year into the TTIP negotiations, for example, the Council had not publicly disclosed the negotiating mandate, or the document on the basis of which it had asked the Commission to negotiate this agreement on our behalf. It did so only after pressure from many actors, including my office, and long after it was freely available in leaked form through Google. The Commission knows better than most that the traditional approach is ill-equipped to generate the legitimacy needed in such high stakes talks. As the committee is well aware, we live in an era where public expectations of transparency are high and where social media and other information technologies do not just fuel that expectation but also either through leaks, inspired searching, or illegal hacking can break down the secrecy barriers in a manner never before experienced. It is a modern reality and a new player in trade talks that has to be accommodated.

I remain convinced that more can be done in the coming months to increase public awareness of the content and implications of TTIP, and particularly when consolidated texts of EU and US positions come close to being finalised. I have therefore urged the Commission to explore with the US what more can be done in this area. The EU and US need to examine together what can be made available. A critical point will be reached when draft consolidated texts on various parts of the agreement become available. I must say, however, at this point that while much of our focus has been correctly on the Commission, it is actually leading by example on this matter. The inquiry I carried out concerned not only transparency but also public participation in the process. Linked to this is the issue of lobbying around TTIP. Overwhelmingly, the public have called for the EU to be more transparent about its contacts with business representatives when it comes to TTIP. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception that this deal is primarily for large private interests and that they have privileged access when it comes to shaping the deal. I have not seen any evidence of this but I did make a number of suggestions to the Commission to promote balanced and transparent public participation. I called for increased transparency around meetings that Commission officials hold on TTIP with business organisations, lobby groups and non-government organisations. Also of importance is the content of what interest representatives discuss with the Commission and the documents they exchange with it. These should, as far as possible, be made public.

I met Commissioner Malmström in Brussels in February to discuss the need for more transparency in the negotiations. We agreed that this is another example of how the EU is moving away from its technocratic past and toward a much more political space. That is to be welcomed, as the major decisions being made in Brussels on behalf of Europe should be the outcome of a political process, which in turn should be the outcome of the political preferences of the voters. Whether the Commission will win the hearts and minds of Europeans on TTIP is yet to be seen.

In concluding, I will briefly comment on the general issue of lobbying at the EU level. As we know, lobbying in Brussels is now a multi-million euro business, and multi-billion euro legislative issues are at stake. Lobbying is of course a vital and essential part of our democracy, our freedoms and our right as citizens to make representations to those empowered to make decisions that will affect individual lives, as well as those of businesses big and small.

As citizens, we also have the right and should have the freedom to be made aware of who is lobbying and to trust that it is done in a transparent and regulated way. A failure to allow the citizen to see how outcomes emerge is a denial of the fundamental right of participation. That is why I have also focused on issues such as whistleblowing in EU institutions, conflicts of interest and lobbying transparency in general. The Oireachtas has recently agreed a new lobbyist register, which I very much welcome. It is commendable that the Irish Parliament is showing leadership in Europe in this area. At EU level, the transparency register is not yet mandatory and is only a co-operation agreement between the Commission and Parliament. I have called on the Council of Ministers to participate also and to meet only registered lobbyists. The EU administration continues to struggle to secure the high levels of popular legitimacy it desires. It must continue to strive to achieve the gold standard of integrity, transparency and accountability. My job is to help it in that task.