Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guest for carrying out the study, and for the presentation of his information. My question concerns the benefits of total transparency in this area versus the negatives. While it might contribute to democracy in one sense, it might create problems in another. It has been suggested from time to time over the years that the more transparency is required, the less people in executive positions are inclined to take decisions and put their name on the line. Is there a danger that a greater degree of transparency might slow down what is an already relatively slow process at European level? Would the bureaucrats that we regularly complain switch from moving slowly to not moving at all?

Alternatively, they might move more quickly to seize the high ground on positions where it might not necessarily be beneficial to the member state. For example, my colleague made reference to Danish and Swedish positions on certain issues. Some years ago in this room I asked a delegation from Sweden how they reacted to a decision taken at the Council of Ministers. I found out that the Swedish Minister was mandated by the European affairs committee in his homeland. To my mind, that was not of any great benefit to the rest of the European Union. We must consider how the Union works, and whether it works for the benefit of the entire Union, having regard to each of the constituent bodies, or works at the behest of a member state and its own particular, perhaps parochial, interests. There would a danger of parochialism in those circumstances. In the course of his examination, did Dr. Cross find evidence that a member state could influence decisions taken at meetings of the Council of Ministers to a huge extent, above and beyond their status? I am worried about that, as I have previously expressed.