Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first item on our agenda is a discussion with European Movement Ireland, EM Ireland, about its recently published accountability report, which covers the last financial year. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Councillor Neale Richmond and Ms Billie Sparks. The delegation will address the committee on two issues: EM Ireland's submission to the committee on the future of the EU and Ireland's relationship with it and the accountability report, in respect of which the delegates will provide some details of the statistics.

As members know, EM Ireland is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that works to develop the connection between Ireland and the EU. Its yearly accountability report measures a number of key indicators that track Ireland's engagement with the EU at a number of levels and, where relevant, outlines where potential improvements can be made. The report has been described as a scorecard of key issues in Ireland's engagement with the EU. I note Deputy Kyne flicking through the report. Members will note that it has a specific section on this committee's attendance and meetings. It also has a section on last year's fiscal compact treaty. Undoubtedly, members will wish to comment on those sections.

Before beginning, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, make charges against or criticise a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her easily identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence that they are about to give the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular subject and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of that evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of today's proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against an individual or entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it easily identifiable.

I invite Ms Sparks to speak first.

Ms Billie Sparks:

I thank the committee for its invitation to EM Ireland to appear before it. I intend to focus my initial remarks on our submission to the committee as part of the national debate on Ireland and the future of the EU, focusing particularly on the democratic legitimacy of the Union and what EM Ireland is doing in working towards increasing same, as well as the EU's transparency and accountability, before my colleague, Councillor Neale Richmond, discusses the latest findings of EM Ireland's 2012 accountability report, which was published on 7 May 2013.

EM Ireland commends the joint committee on launching this national debate on the future of the EU and Ireland’s relationship with it. We were pleased to have had the opportunity to make a submission to the committee as part of that national debate and to present the findings of our submission today. This crucial conversation is taking place against the background of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU, the 40th anniversary of Ireland's accession to the then European Economic Community and 2013 being designated as the European year of citizens.

This is a crucial time in Ireland's relationship with the EU. That relationship has undergone a dramatic change in recent years. Since 2009 and as a result of the financial crisis, there has been an increasing amount of negativity and euroscepticism among the Irish people. In EM Ireland, we are acutely aware of the challenges that this surge of negativity and anti-EU sentiment can generate, particularly in light of ongoing developments in the Irish-EU relationship. We are working hard to ensure people continue to connect and engage with the EU through a variety of measures that help to foster reasoned, robust and measured debate on all matters European in Ireland.

In our submission to the committee, EM Ireland is seeking to ensure an independent, not-for-profit, civil society voice is heard in this debate, relating as it does to the future direction and form of Ireland's ongoing relationship with its European partners. Founded in 1954, EM Ireland is the oldest civil society membership-based organisation dealing with Irish–EU relations. EM Ireland can and will continue to play a significant role in providing an independent, factual, non-governmental voice of reason on Europe that no other organisation can.

In compiling this submission, we asked our members and advisory council to submit their thoughts on Ireland and the future of the EU as part of the national debate. The responses received reflected the changing relationship between Ireland and the EU and dealt with many diverse issues. It was felt that EM Ireland was best placed to deal with the modules in the call for submissions that dealt with democratic legitimacy and accountability, the matters on which we will focus today.

With 2013 being designated the European year of citizens and Ireland hosting the Presidency during the first half of the year, there is an opportunity to engage Irish people in European matters and, consequently, to work towards increasing the democratic legitimacy of the Union. EM Ireland is fully aware of this unique opportunity and we are working on delivering programmes and projects that reflect the current challenges facing Ireland and the wider EU while strengthening Irish citizens' engagement with the Union.

This year, EM Ireland is particularly focused on seeking to develop a transparent connection between the ordinary people of Ireland and both the Presidency and the European year of citizens 2013. In addition to our regular programmes and campaigns, such as the accountability campaign, which Mr. Richmond will discuss in further detail, and our work in the third level sector, we have increased significantly our communications and information dissemination campaigns and programmes.

On the education front, we continue to pursue our grad jobs campaign, which is aimed at increasing awareness among Irish graduates of the opportunities that exist for them in the broader EU system. A significant part of this work involves presentations to careers services, colleges, classes and societies throughout the institutes of technology and universities. In addition, we are pleased to have been appointed to the national implementation body for the roll-out and delivery of the Blue Star programme in partnership with the Department of the Taoiseach and the Minister of State for European affairs in the delivery of the programme's second year in primary schools throughout Ireland. The idea of the programme is simple: foster better understanding and knowledge of the EU and how it affects the lives of Irish citizens among primary pupils through classroom projects and activities. The Blue Star programme aims to introduce participants, pupils, teachers, parents and the wider community to the EU, what it means and how it works. The programme also aims to foster a strong sense of awareness of the EU among its participants that reaches far beyond the school walls and into the wider community.

This year has been declared the European year of citizens, which EM Ireland was delighted to launch in Dublin City Hall in January. The year was officially launched by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, along with the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste. This launch was followed by an afternoon session featuring an interactive and participatory citizens dialogue at which the Vice President of the European Commission, Ms Viviane Reding, and the Minister of State for European affairs, Deputy Creighton, engaged in a frank and open exchange of opinions with more than 200 citizen guests on the current economic crisis, the rights of European citizens and the future of the EU.

Throughout 2013, EM Ireland will continue to roll out these dialogues by hosting a series of regional town hall meetings and local seminars on the theme of the European year of citizens. Given that the significant majority of the official Presidency events will be taking place in Dublin, our series of regional town hall meetings are about reclaiming the debate. Their aim is to ensure people have an opportunity to make their voices heard and to engage with those representing them on the European stage, thus further increasing the fundamental premise of democratic legitimacy, transparency and accountability.

These dialogues are an opportunity for citizens in Ireland to participate in the important debate regarding the future shape of the EU, which underpins the purpose of this submission. We have hosted two of these regional dialogues. The first was in Cork, where EM Ireland hosted a regional dialogue with the Tánaiste in City Hall. We also hosted one in Galway with the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, in April. These regional dialogues are the commencement of a national discussion on the Irish–EU relationship by the citizens during this 12-month timeframe, and we look forward to rolling out a further four dialogues during 2013.

Each attendee at these dialogues is asked to complete a questionnaire in order to share his or her opinions on the EU. We look forward to publishing a report on our findings at the conclusion of the dialogues and to progressing the outcomes of this debate. The dialogues are being supplemented by a range of small-scale talks on the EU and the Irish Presidency provided by EM Ireland staff to the public through a network of public libraries and Europe Direct information centres.

One of the lessons learned from our two Lisbon referendums was the relative lack of knowledge about the EU among young people. One way in which we are seeking to address this is with our youth media and the Irish Presidency programme. As part of this programme, EM Ireland has recruited a team of 25 young citizen journalists from around the country to cover and report on the Irish Presidency from January to June 2013.

These young journalists have been trained to report on Presidency events with a youth audience in mind and to provide a useful source of local knowledge and input through local reporting on all Irish EU Presidency and European year of the citizens activities in their communities. The programme targets young people in that Presidency events and developments are reported in a youth-friendly and accessible format.

As I mentioned, in seeking to answer the call for submissions to this national debate on the future of Ireland and the EU, we spoke to our members, focusing on what could be done to increase democratic legitimacy and accountability of the EU. It was believed that more could be done to ensure engagement by the Irish people with the EU, in particular as this comes at a crucial time in Irish–EU relations. The general consensus among EM Ireland members was that there are real opportunities for enhanced engagement between Ireland and the EU at many levels and this increased engagement would lead to increased democratic legitimacy and accountability.

At the start of January, European Movement Ireland commissioned Red C to carry out a poll to ascertain Irish people’s views on a variety of different topics related to Irish-EU relations. Members should have copies of the results in their packs. It was conducted among a representative sample of more than 1,000 adults throughout the country. The results of this poll are encouraging. It demonstrated that 85% of the population believe that Ireland should remain part of the EU, and the vast majority of the population - 83% - believe that Ireland has benefited overall from membership. The results also seem to indicate that in spite of the presence of the troika in Ireland, the debate over bondholders and the economic downturn, there is widespread acknowledgement of the benefits for Ireland that lie in membership of the EU. We also asked participants in the poll if Ireland should remain in the EU if the United Kingdom were to opt to leave. The poll found that just 29% of the population thought Ireland should leave the EU if the UK decided to do so. We found this to be an interesting barometer of how far Anglo-Irish relations had developed in respect of the EU.

Apart from reflecting general support for Ireland’s EU membership, our poll also held good news for the Irish Presidency, with 76% of the population aware that Ireland currently holds the rotating Presidency. Interestingly, awareness is strongest among men and those in older age groups. Within the statistic, a contrasting indicator showed that just over half, or 52%, of the 18 to 24 year old demographic were aware that Ireland currently holds the Presidency. As mentioned, EM Ireland has sought to address this issue through our youth media and the Irish Presidency programme. In addition to increasing awareness among younger citizens, it is also important that we reach out to mná na hÉireann, as this poll shows that just 71% of women are aware that Ireland is holding the Presidency of the Council of the EU, compared with 82% of men. Despite the overall encouraging results from our poll, we cannot afford to be complacent about Ireland’s relationship with the EU and citizen sentiment towards Europe. That is why we believe our accountability report is so important, as it seeks to track statistically Ireland’s engagement with the EU.

I will now pass over to my colleague, Mr. Neale Richmond, who will talk about the results of the most recent accountability report in more detail. I look forward to members' questions and comments on this presentation and to progressing further with them the outcomes of this important national debate on Ireland and the future of the EU.

Mr. Neale Richmond:

I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for asking us to attend again. My role here is to take members through our 2012 accountability report, which is found in the yellow book they have in front of them.

Two weeks ago, we produced the third annual edition of the accountability report. Throughout 2012, European Movement Ireland measured a number of key indicators tracking Ireland’s engagement with the EU at a variety of levels. Our 2012 accountability report is based on a monthly analysis of 31 key indicators and builds on the work of the previous editions, extending and refining the systems used to identify, track and store the relevant data. Data integrity was of central importance in the compilation of this report, and much time was dedicated to ensuring that tracking the information took place using only mathematical systems, thereby decreasing any opportunity for subjectivity. The report’s findings are based on statistical information that is both quantifiable and available as a matter of public record. The accountability report is an organic document, and we go to great lengths to engage with elected representatives, officials and members of the public to deepen the report as much as possible.

Essentially, we focused on six principal areas: European Council and Councils of the EU; European Parliament engagement; pre-legislative input to the European Commission; Oireachtas engagement; other European institutions; and the fiscal stability treaty referendum campaign.I will begin with the European Council and Councils of the EU. Average Irish ministerial attendance at meetings of the Councils of the European Union in 2012 stood at 97%, with either a lead Minister or a Minister of State attending 72 out of a total of 74 Council meetings. This is an increase of 11% from the data recorded under the 31st Dáil in 2011, and leaves Ireland in second position, behind Sweden and Poland which are joint first at 99%. Eight out of ten EU Councils in 2012 had an Irish ministerial attendance rate of 100%. Only two Councils, the Foreign Affairs Council, FAC, and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, ECOFIN, have less than perfect attendance rates, at 92% each.
I move to European Parliament engagement. Average Irish MEP attendance at plenary sessions of the European Parliament stands at 83% for 2012. This is a decrease of 2% from statistics recorded in the accountability report for 2011. Irish MEPs raised 455 parliamentary questions in 2012 - a 50% drop from the 683 questions raised in 2011, and a further drop from just under 1,000 questions raised in 2010. During 2012, Irish MEPs made a total of 365 speeches, a decrease of 33% compared with the 2011 figure of 727 speeches. Average Irish MEP attendance at parliamentary committee meetings stands at 76% for 2012. Irish MEPs also acted as substitute members at 24% of committee meetings in 2012. During 2012, Irish MEPs spoke 249 times during committee. This is a new indicator and therefore there are no comparisons available for 2011. There is Irish representation on 14 of the 20 standing committees and on one special committee, which began its work in March 2012. Each of the Irish MEPs is a member or a substitute member of at least two committees. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has the highest level of representation from an Irish MEP perspective. In 2012, two reports were drawn up by an Irish rapporteur and four opinions were drafted up by an Irish rapporteur. It is important to note that in addition to sitting on parliamentary committees and delegations, most Irish MEPs are also members of a range of inter-group dealing with specialised interest areas such as disability, media or trade unions. Our report merely touches upon the workload of an MEP but we used the most scientific barometers at our disposal.
In terms of Oireachtas engagement, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs met a total of 36 times in 2012. The attendance rate for members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs during 2012 was 64%, a decrease of 7% from the overall attendance rate recorded under the 31st Dáil in 2011. Of the 74 Council meetings that took place during 2012, 25, or 34%, had pre-Council briefings in front of the relevant Oireachtas committee. Of the 11 General Affairs Council meetings that took place during 2012, seven had pre-Council briefings before the Committee on European Union Affairs. Based on this analysis, 64%, or seven out of 11 General Affairs Council meetings were preceded by a pre-Council briefing to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. This represents an increase on the previous calendar year’s rate of 27%.
I refer to the European Commission and pre-legislative input. Individual, business and civil society input into the pre-legislative stage of EU policy formation increased by 0.5% in 2012 when compared with the 2011 figures. Of the 51 European Commission consultations reviewed for this year’s accountability report, the percentage of total submissions that originated in Ireland in 2012 ranged from 0% to 4.75%, with an average of 1.4 %.

This year, to broaden the spectrum of the report, we decided to also look at Irish engagement with other European institutions. We detailed the role and workings of the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Council of Europe and the OSCE. We also looked at the following statistical indicators. The Irish attendance rate at plenary sessions of the Committee of the Regions in 2012 was 94%, which compares with the overall attendance rate of 79%. In 2012, there were 30 Commission meetings of the Committee of the Regions. Each Irish member is a member of two Commissions, although in some cases an alternative will attend meetings if he or she has a particular expertise. The Irish attendance rate for Commissions was 97%, which compares favourably with the overall attendance rate of 82%.

The Irish delegation had an 80% rate of attendance at plenary sessions of the EESC in 2012. Irish attendance at 2012 plenary sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stood at 60%. Attendance at plenary sessions of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe by Irish Members in 2012 stood at 75%. Irish attendance at the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE during Ireland’s presidency of the organisation in 2012 was 72%.

One of the principal aims of EM Ireland is to facilitate debate and provide information on the Irish-EU relationship. Our report does this by analysing the level of transparency and accountability at both national and European level so that Irish citizens can see how we are being represented by our elected officials. This report is an organic document. We have added a number of indicators this year and hope to develop the report even further ahead of next year. However, we are limited to using only indicators that are on the record which can be easily accessed by members of the public.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Neale Richmond and Ms Billie Sparks for their presentation today. I will begin by addressing some comments to Ms Sparks. It is great that she has appeared before the joint committee to talk about the future of Europe. All members respect the work of European Movement Ireland, EM Ireland, and its attempts to try to educate and inform people as to what is going on in Europe and where Europe is going. I compliment it on this work, particularly in respect of its regional discussions, because it is important to get out there and remind oneself it is not simply about holding meetings within the capital and that it is necessary to go out and talk to people in the regions and get their views on Europe and how they would like it to develop. I congratulate EM Ireland on that initiative and look forward to joining it at some of the locations throughout the country.

This is EM Ireland's third year of producing the accountability report and it is very much a step forward. It sets benchmarks for the various institutional attendance rates and performance. In the spirit of trying to make next year's report even better, I have a couple of suggestions on which the witnesses might comment or else they might take them away. The first pertains to attendance, and I will comment specifically about this joint committee's attendance rates. Mr. Richmond noted the attendance rate at this joint committee was approximately 64%, and I have a couple of things to say in this regard. First, it might be useful to note in the report that other committees meet at the same time as this joint committee. For instance, as one can see on the room's monitors, an important meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children is under way, as are meetings of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. As many members of this joint committee will be leading the questions in the aforementioned committees, it would give a clearer picture were one to note members are on business elsewhere. Moreover, members might be on business outside the Houses at the same time. Consequently, I would not like the message to emerge from this meeting that one third of members are simply sitting this one out.

I also suggest EM Ireland might give consideration to the issue of serial offenders. Were it to delve through the actual attendance records, it would see that some people may need to be encouraged to attend these meetings more frequently. I do not mean anyone who is present. I am sick of the sight of Deputy Bernard Durkan and the other members in attendance today, who are present at every meeting. However, one or two people could be encouraged to improve their attendance. I will leave those suggestions with the witnesses.

The second point relates to chapter 6 of the report, from page 87 onwards, on the referendum on the fiscal compact treaty. As I note Mr. Richmond's comments on wishing to eliminate subjectivity, I will read out a couple of sentences that sprang out from that particular section and I hope he will see where I am going with this. On page 88, the report states there were "commanding Dáil performances from a number of [Sinn Féin's] more prominent TDs". On the next page, it is stated that "Deputies Shane Ross and Finian McGrath belatedly came out against the Treaty". A few pages on, the Taoiseach's decision not to take part in a formal debate is commented on and the report states "that decision may have impacted on the Taoiseach's personal popularity". Further on it is stated "the contribution of Fianna Fáil to the campaign cannot be underestimated". I have no particular argument with any of these points other than that each is highly subjective and they are not based on fact. Incidentally, EM Ireland's analysis of the referendum on the fiscal compact treaty is very good but it would be better if the report did not contain so much subjectivity. This is not to agree or disagree with any of the particular statements, other than by stating I do not believe it is the place for such subjectivity, particularly bearing in mind how detailed a debate was held in this particular forum on the referendum and the strength of feelings it raised.

I will leave it at that. I believe it is a fantastic document, which can be very useful and I look forward to next year's edition being even better than this year's report.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome both Ms Billie Sparks and Mr. Neale Richmond. The poll is very well presented and is one of the most readable and legible contributions I have seen thus far. It reveals the level of support there is for Europe, in that 85% of Irish people believe Ireland should remain as part of the European Union, which is very good. While it would not be our wish to have the United Kingdom leave, were it to so do, the general consensus is that Ireland would stay. While the accountability report is extremely well put together, I refer to the list of members of this joint committee on page 61. I am sure Deputy Joe O'Reilly would not wish to be deemed to be a member of Fianna Fáil.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These things happen.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While these things happen, it would be better to have it corrected because-----

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One would want to be careful, as the other man is recorded as "Joseph".

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The member I know here is called Joe O'Reilly. As far as I know he is-----

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know. I had the same question as to whether the Joe O'Reilly of Fianna Fáil on this page is the same person as Joseph O'Reilly of Fine Gael. I presume there is a mistake there.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where is the other Joseph O'Reilly?

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reference to Joseph O'Reilly appears on page 78 in the context of membership of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It refers to "Joseph O'Reilly TD (Fine Gael/EPP)".

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is only a small detail and these things happen. In any event, I agree with the Chairman regarding the questionable nature of the documentation on attendance. While I have no problem with including members' attendance, one should go into it further and state precisely who is attending. I was interested to see the contribution regarding the Council of Europe, of which I am a member. I am deputy leader of that group and I compliment EM Ireland on including the details. This document is very useful for many people, including students of Europe. For example, it includes an organisation with which I am not that familiar, namely, the European Economic and Social Committee, which has no Oireachtas Member on it, as it happens. Similarly, it refers to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, which of course includes representation by a delegation from the Oireachtas, and that is very good. As far as attendance is concerned, again the report is slightly misleading in respect of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We actually have a full turnout for the main sitting days, which take place between Monday and Thursday. Friday typically is a day on which there is very little activity and, from an economic point of view, we tend not to attend on that day unless there is a matter of specific interest to Ireland.

As for these details, as the Chairman stated, one may as well name those who attend the meetings and publish the attendance records. I have no problem with that and think it is only fair. However, when one generalises and cites an attendance rate of 60%, it is not actually that accurate. It is 100% from Monday to Thursday, but if one divides by five, one will end up with X percentage gone. However, it is important this activity is included.

On the question of prominent Deputies during the election campaign, if "vigorous" means doing nothing, it was a very vigorous campaign because I saw no action on the ground as far as the constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim was concerned. However, if that constitutes vigorous campaigning, it is wonderful to describe it as such. Perhaps I did not notice it but I certainly did not see it in the constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim. While I did not see much vigorous campaigning by anyone during that particular campaign, that is neither here nor there. Nevertheless, the decision was correct. It is very difficult when one makes generalisations like that.

I will conclude by noting that one thing that will affect support for Europe is the reduction in the number of MEPs. Ireland supported the admission of Croatia and, in consequence, more than likely will end up with one fewer MEP, down from 12 to 11. Were Turkey to join the European Union, Ireland would end up thereafter with possibly as few as six MEPs. I understand the maximum number of MEPs is set at 765 and, consequently, the greater the number of member states that join, the smaller Ireland's membership of the European Parliament will be. There is a possibility that Ireland, with a population of 4.5 million, will be reduced to the same level of representation as member states such as Malta or Luxembourg, that is, with six seats. This is an important issue and I believe having fewer representatives in Europe will affect the actual voting record in the future. In this context, I note the Connacht-Ulster constituency has 79% recognition of Europe.

Other than that, I believe the production of this report is a very good exercise as far as Ireland is concerned. It is good that a non-political organisation should put together a document like this. It is a document I presume will be made available in libraries throughout the country because people can use it to conduct research about Europe. I say well done and I have no criticism of the entire report but have mentioned something the witnesses may wish to bear in mind in future reports.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both witnesses. I must confess that I read the report and found it most interesting, hence my question about Joe O'Reilly of Fianna Fáil and the Joseph O'Reilly of Fine Gael. They might be two politicians or they might not, but before the report goes to the Library, I request that the matter would be checked.

I do not wish the witnesses to answer the question if it embarrasses them but it is fascinating that two citizens are present in a voluntary capacity and that they have a programme of visiting schools and educating children, that they have the facility to produce such a report and that they are a non-political, not-for-profit organisation. I did not realise they have a spy in the camp every day the Joint Committee on European Affairs sits. They are more than welcome. I am pleased to learn that at least one person in the audience represents European Movement Ireland.

The witnesses will have noticed how sensitive the Chairman was about the slap on the wrist they gave on the relative drop – 11% - in committee attendance to 67%. It is worth pointing out – the point might have been made already – that I can guarantee that as I clocked in today, my attendance record in the Houses of the Oireachtas is 94%. That does not mean the national media, RTE and the leaders of all political parties recognise me as a great parliamentarian who is better than everyone else. In a sense, what I say is that attendance is one thing and what goes on after the clocking in is more important. It is not necessary for the witnesses to list each individual’s attendance.

I wish to focus on three key areas in the report. The witnesses brought to our attention the fact that when directorates general, DGs, issue consultative documents, they seems to be at sixes and sevens about how they release the discussion documents, analyse the feedback and how matters are ultimately presented. That is noteworthy. The process definitely appears to require improvement.

Perhaps it is not a fair question to ask but the witnesses can answer it if they wish. I would welcome their views on the committee’s oversight role on the scrutiny of European affairs. I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade which has a similar role. We had a discussion with the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, about the ability of elected public representatives to devote the necessary time to analysis and scrutiny in terms of our oversight responsibilities.

I occasionally visit schools to explain what a Deputy is and I find it difficult to get the children to realise that a Deputy is not the same as a councillor. I hesitate to say it in public but I am surprised that many of the teaching profession who are charged with educating children on the political context and structures of Irish politics are themselves confused about the roles of parliamentarians and councillors.

In explaining European issues to children, the witnesses include reference to the "PAC". I did not realise that in this context it is the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Reference was also made to the OSCE but, more specifically, it is to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. I did not realise there were so many parliamentary assemblies and I do not think the public does either. I wish to ask a political question and I understand that the witnesses might not be at liberty to comment. The public surely does not know about the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Are there too many such fora? Is there duplication? For example, the OSCE is based in two, if not three, countries. One part is in Vienna, another part is in Copenhagen, while the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, wing is in Warsaw. It strikes me that children might find it difficult to get their heads around all of those assemblies, the European assemblies and committees. I would appreciate it if an opinion were forthcoming.

Mr. Neale Richmond:

I will start and then I will invite Ms Sparks to respond to some of the later questions. I acknowledge the comment on the fact that other committee meetings clash. We will endeavour to include the information in next year’s publication. This is an organic document. We are not scared of criticism and we welcome constructive criticism in particular. Our chapter on the European Parliament in this year’s report is a lot more detailed than last year because of the feedback received.

The point about serial offenders is appreciated but to ensure the scientific merit of the report, we strictly do not individualise. We just want the data for the collective and we do not intend to deviate from that position. When we released the report two weeks ago, the first queries we received from the press related to individual rates but we do not feel we are in a position to rate individuals. We would prefer to rate the collective.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Journalists could do that themselves if they wanted because the information is all available online on the committee website if they choose to go there.

Mr. Neale Richmond:

Absolutely. The fiscal stability treaty chapter was taken from a wider report of 25 pages to 30 pages that we published within a week of the referendum result last year. As outlined in the report, it is not our opinion. It is based on the public opinion that was displayed either in the press or on public websites. It is a review of the campaign based on public sources. We appreciate that it is probably a bit too subjective. Much of the content was not our words. We just collated the information available. Most of it was taken together. We do a morning media watch service whereby we go through all media service to see who is talking about Europe, and then we collect the information and send it out to our members and anyone who wants to subscribe. That is essentially what we felt was coming across as the themes of the campaign as reported in the media. Some of the lines were direct quotes. We had quotations in the wider report but in the condensed version we just collected the information into the ten pages available.

In response to Senator Leyden, it is every editor’s nightmare to see one has made an error but the Joe O’Reilly of Fianna Fáil is indeed Deputy Joe O’Reilly of Fine Gael from Cavan-Monaghan. I apologise heartily to him. He is referred to as “Joseph O’Reilly” in the official Council of Europe documentation so that is why I reported him as “Joseph” as opposed to “Joe”.

There were no Oireachtas Members on the European Economic and Social Committee, EESC, because it is a non-parliamentary body. It is composed of people from various interest groups in the sector. I am most interested in the point made about the Council of Europe and down days. It is not fair to report on attendance in that regard. That is a point that was made to us by many MEPs, especially in regard to their attendance in Strasbourg. The Thursday is very much a travel day and the fact that there are no direct flights from Dublin to Strasbourg means that, as with the Council of Europe, one has to go to Baden-Baden, Frankfurt or Paris. We appreciate that and we will definitely put that caveat into next year’s report.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not sensitive about it because the attendance is very good.

Mr. Neale Richmond:

It is above the average. We are keen to point out that in all categories we rate that are comparable with other European nations, this country is very much in the top echelons for every area.

We appreciate the points on the reduction in the number of MEPs. We do not have a position on it because no decision has been made. We know the issue is still with the European Parliament to decide on whether definitely to reduce the number of Irish MEPs. We will review the situation when the decision is made and note the findings.

The report is already available on our website. It was sent to all Oireachtas Members, all Secretaries General of Departments and all libraries. We do a lot of work with Europe Direct centres and libraries throughout the country. We have already spoken to Europe Direct information centres in Mountmellick and Blanchardstown and we will be in Mallow and Dundalk over the summer. We will go wherever we are invited to give our little spiel about Europe.

Deputy Eric Byrne raised a number of points. I will hand one or two of them to Ms Sparks if that is all right because even though I presented the accountability report, it was very much a joint effort between not just the pair of us but the entire office. As one might appreciate, no one person on his or her own could deal with the amount of data that had to be collected. I will also refer to her the matter of the DG's consultation.

Ms Billie Sparks:

Dealing with Deputy Byrne's three points, on the DG's consultations, this is the third time this point has appeared in our accountability report and we have been talking to Commission representatives in Dublin about it. They were very interested and have taken that on board with a view to taking it further because they see it as a block and if it is easy to remedy they will consider it from a different perspective.

We are aware of the scrutiny work and mainstreaming done by this committee. We read the report by the committee for the purposes of our 2012 accountability report. It covered only the first five months of 2012 so we have not included the data in our report because we did not feel it gave an overall picture. We are aware of the work the committee is doing and the mainstreaming process is working well in terms of scrutiny from what we gathered from the report.

Working in European affairs we constantly battle with the number of and confusion about the different European institutions. For the purposes of what we do with the primary schools, the Blue Star programme focuses on four main areas: the history of the EU, its geography, the cultural and creative aspects of the Union and, for older classes, its institutions. We do not get into the level of detail as outlined in the accountability report here. The younger classes might learn the flags of the different European countries while we encourage the Blue Star schools to have a celebration on Europe day, where they bring in food from different countries. It is informal learning about the EU.

Mr. Neale Richmond:

The question was asked if there are too many institutions and too much duplication. Much of this is historical. The Council of Europe existed long before what we know as the European Union, as did the OSCE. Other institutions have emerged as the EU has developed and there was a need for a parliament that was directly elected by the people. Then the Committee of the Regions came into being, as did the European Economic and Social Committee. There are a lot but we stress in the report that some of these are legislative bodies while others are consultative. The report is more than 100 pages in length compared to the 25 page report published in 2010 because we tried to explain this in detail and, while it is accessible to the public, it also has relevant academic standing.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the next report might mention that it is the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE as against the OSCE.

Mr. Neale Richmond:

We state that in the report.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Sparks and Mr. Richmond to the committee and commend them for their report; it has a lot of valuable detail. MEPs took umbrage at some of the things in it but was there any explanation for the 15% drop in the number of speeches between 2011 and 2012 and the 33% drop in the number of parliamentary questions? I know there was a comment on the costs of answering parliamentary questions because of all the translation needed.

The polling data by Red C and the European Movement Ireland on attitudes towards Ireland in the EU is interesting, particularly that 89% of 18 to 24 year olds still believe Ireland should remain part of the EU. The lowest figure for that was in the 35-44 age group, where 78% say Ireland should remain part of the EU. That age group also has the highest number who believe we should leave the euro, and if Britain were to leave, Ireland should also leave, with 38% agreeing with that. Is that data related to austerity or indebtedness, with people feeling they are being imposed on by Europe? That cohort is the cohort that is most likely to be suffering.

The Blue Star programme is confined to primary schools. Is there engagement at second level, particularly with transition year students or those on the CSPE courses? I attended some of those classes to speak and they address politics and similar issues.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in and congratulate them for publishing this report. It reminded me of what can happen when a book is published and the person reading it is worried he or she might be mentioned in it. He or she looks at the index to see if his or her name is there and depending on the book, he or she is either disappointed or relieved one way or another. Because we are the subject of this it is understandable we would all have an interest in the references made to this committee. It is good to see this sort of detail and how the different mechanisms of the EU engage in their work.

The focus on parliamentary questions, and the comparison made with the Dáil, is extreme. Members of the European Parliament may well use correspondence to elicit answers. They are parliamentarians who represent far bigger constituencies than any of us so the level of engagement we have with individuals, and the number of questions we can generate as a result, will be always higher for us in the Dáil. I would caution reading too much into the use of parliamentary questions in the European Parliament.

There was a reference to the fact that most of our MEPs are rapporteurs and draftsmen, which are extraordinarily important jobs in all parliaments but I would suggest that as an appendix to the next report, concrete examples be given of that work so the public and the media could look at the work and see its quality. People might not readily understand what it means to be a draftsman or a rapporteur.

The poll is very well presented. The similarity between this poll and the last Eurobarometer opinion poll that was produced shows a very interesting dichotomy in opinions. It showed that, even though the level of dissatisfaction with the EU has increased, the levels of dissatisfaction with the European institutions are still lower than for their national equivalents. It is striking that when people were asked what level they thought the response to the crisis was at, the highest number said that the best response to our crisis is at European level rather than at national level. It shows that even though there are growing levels of dissatisfaction, a lot of people still understand the best level of response to many of our difficulties is European rather than national.

I finished a book lately called "The Widest Circle", a collection of essays dedicated to Michael Sweetman, who was a very prominent member of Fine Gael in the 1960s and 1970s.

I was not aware of the role he played in the European Movement or that he was a founder member. Mr. Sweetman died tragically in an aeroplane crash shortly after the referendum in which he played such a major role was passed. It is nice to have representatives of the European Movement before us as it reminds me of the illustrious provenance of the organisation and the quality of people who have contributed to the European debate at different stages in Ireland's history.

The European Movement has published a great report. I was pleased to note the coverage it received in The Irish Times. The reason some people have a difficulty with it is that these issues matter. They should be reported and should generate debate. I wish an equivalent report would be published for the Dáil and Seanad.

Mr. Neale Richmond:

I will respond first, after which Ms Sparks will address several of the issues raised. I appreciate the comments made by members, especially those of Deputy Donohoe.

Deputy Kyne noted that certain Members of the European Parliament took umbrage at our report. We appreciate the comments of the MEPs in question. As I noted, we went to great lengths to engage with them and their offices in advance of publication and they had sight of the report long before it was published. A number of MEPs do not like the report or what we are doing and do not believe the report is accurate. While we appreciate their comments, we have been contacted by many more people who believe the report has an important role to play. I hope we will continue to perform this role.

I stress again that the report has not been individualised because we do not want it to be personal. As a scientific and academic exercise, it is preferable to examine MEPs as a collective. The feedback we received from MEPs included explanations for the decline in the number of speeches made and parliamentary questions asked. As Deputy Kyne stated, cost was a significant issue as the cost of receiving a reply from the European Commission can be up to €1,600. It is unfair to compare the Dáil and European Parliament, as it takes up to six weeks to obtain a reply from the Commission. In addition, MEPs represent much wider constituencies than members of national parliaments. Many of them are selected from a national list and do not need to worry about the constituency concerns with which MEPs elected under the single transferable vote, PR-STV, electoral system must contend. Asking a question is also less relevant when direct communication between parliamentarians and officials of the European Commission is encouraged and has become the norm. There is no Government or Opposition in the European Parliament as the numbers have traditionally been such as to require a power-sharing arrangement.

This year, in addition to statistics on speeches in plenary, we included statistics on speeches in committee session as the latter tend to carry much more weight. Some MEPs stated it is easy to provide an explanation for a vote and have it registered as a speech or to submit a short speech of one minute to the President at the start of proceedings. They do not believe such contributions are as important as some of the speeches made on legislation, either in the Oireachtas or at committee level in the European Parliament. That is the feedback we received from MEPs on the issue.

The Deputy referred to the generational drop-off within the poll. While we presented some analysis, we relied on RED C research and marketing for much of the analysis of the poll. As a professional company that engages in weekly polling, members will be familiar with it. RED C indicated that satisfaction levels among the generation aged between 35 and 45 years are consistent because this generation does not necessarily appreciate how much the European Union and European project has done for it. Having been born long after the end of the Second World War, many people in this age group may have taken a cynical view of the decision to award the European Union the Nobel Peace Prize, notwithstanding that the EU was founded specifically in response to the Second World War and the impact it had on the European Continent. The 35 to 45 years age group has also been squeezed most by the crisis in terms of the property crash and other financial measures. That is not our opinion but a finding across all sentiment polling carried out by RED C.

Ms Billie Sparks:

To respond to Deputy Kyne, the Blue Star programme is confined to primary schools. We also run a series of talks in secondary schools entitled "The EU in 20 Minutes". Under this project, we visit schools on request and make a presentation on the European Union, ideally in 20 minutes, after which we have a questions and answers session. Prior to this academic year, we ran another second level programme entitled "My Vision for Europe". This was an all-island initiative that focused primarily on transition year students in the South and 15 to 17 year olds in Northern Ireland. The programme is not running this year, which is not to say it will not be renewed. With the Presidency and so forth taking place this year, we did not have sufficient resources to run it this year.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I praised the European Movement for its voluntary contribution. It must receive funding from somewhere. What is its budget and how many staff does it employ?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To return to Mr. Richmond's comments, we need to rethink the reasons we want citizens to support the European project. In the past, these reasons were clear. Initially, it was argued that European integration is a vastly better alternative to the wars that have destroyed our continent. Subsequently, an argument was made that we should support European integration because of the economic benefits of the euro. We are now in a position where both of these pitches are no longer clear-cut. The argument about war is less relevant because of the generational change that has taken place, while the economic argument can no longer be made for clear reasons with which we are all familiar. What are the best reasons one can present to the undecided in support of the view that Ireland's future lies in an integrated Europe?

The backdrop to the European project will change radically if, as is possible, the United Kingdom holds a referendum on EU membership. While this decision will depend on which party leads the next British Government, there is at least a 50-50 chance that Britain will hold a referendum. The political cycle makes inevitable that a movement such as the Five Star Movement in Italy, Syriza in Greece or the True Finns party will enter government in a European country at some point. Mr. Richmond and Ms Sparks are supportive of Europe but are not aligned to a political party and do not adhere to any particular philosophy about how integration should take place. What, in their view, are the most convincing arguments for the European project?

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Mr. Richmond and Ms Sparks to respond to the questions and make any final comments they may have.

Mr. Neale Richmond:

To respond to Deputy Byrne, the European Movement is a not-for-profit body that is staffed by three permanent staff, a number of part-time staff and volunteers. Our funding primarily comes from our membership. Individual members range from students to professionals and we also have corporate and institutional members. We bid for a number of tenders to the European Commission, Léargas and the Government to run various programmes in schools and run our actions. For example, we are the national implementation body of the Blue Star programme and receive an element of funding under the Department of the Taoiseach's block grant each year. I stress, however, that this funding has declined greatly in recent years. Those are the sources of most of the money used to support our actions.

It could take a little longer to answer Deputy Donohoe's question but I will try to do so in 30 seconds. European integration was very much a bottom-up initiative in which individual ministers from European countries, notably France and Germany, came together because they wished to avoid a recurrence of the devastation caused by the Second World War. The European institutions developed as a result of this co-operation and the economic success of the early European Coal and Steel Community allowed the European project to develop and become attractive to peripheral states such as Ireland and independently wealthy states such as Denmark, Austria and Sweden which realised they would be better off in the European project. Other states such as Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway realised they did not need to be part of the project.

The challenge is very much to the leaders of Europe to ensure the entity we know as the European Union does not become a top-down institution that lectures its almost 400 million citizens across Europe about why European integration is good. Instead, it should deliberately show citizens why it is good. It was easy in Ireland in the early 1990s to see the Structural Funds in action. One only had to take a spin in the car on the M50 to see the road was largely funded by the European Union. We no longer see this as evidence, which may be partly due to the way in which the media reports Europe.

There are more than 100 pages in the report but the media want to find the little slightly negative details as opposed to the vast number of positive aspects not only at the political level but at all levels. The challenge for our political leaders is to demonstrate it practically and vocally and not just at referendum time.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee I thank Ms Sparks and Mr. Richmond for coming before the committee and for the work the organisation has put into the report. The committee is very appreciative of it and we look forward to next year's report.