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.