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

I remind members, guests and others to ensure their mobile phones are switched off completely. It is not sufficient to leave them in silent mode, as they will interfere with the recording equipment.

The first item on our agenda is a discussion of the topic democratic legitimacy and accountability in the European Union. On behalf of the joint committee, I am delighted to welcome Mr. Francis Jacobs, head of office at the European Parliament Information Centre in Dublin. This is another in a series of discussions we are having on the future of the European Union. Today our focus is on the role of an ever-more assertive European Parliament in underpinning democratic legitimacy and accountability. As members know, the 2008 Lisbon treaty placed directly elected MEPs at the heart of the European Union's decision-making process. As the European Union shifts from crisis management to a more proactive approach, we will explore the role the European Parliament is playing in bolstering public confidence in the Union's capacity to deliver for its citizens through measures such as, for example, the youth guarantee initiative. This session with Mr. Jacobs gives us the opportunity to debate such issues.

Before we begin, 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 they give to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular subject and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against an individual or an entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it easily identifiable.

I invite Mr. Jacobs to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

I thank the Chairman for his invitation to address the joint committee, which is a great honour. I also welcome the initiative taken by the committee which it has been carrying out in recent weeks and months. Its inquiry is timely. The European Union has been going through a major economic crisis which has undoubtedly weakened support for its institutions and policies.

The measures taken to tackle the crisis have had considerable success, but they have tended to deepen EU integration on an ad hocand sometimes an even intergovernmental basis without some of the corresponding measures to strengthen democratic accountability at either European Parliament or national parliament level. European Parliament elections will be held in just under one year's time. All of these developments could lower turnout and-or lead to a rise in support for populist or protest parties. It is essential, therefore, that the democratic legitimacy of all EU policies, including the evolving Economic and Monetary Union, be strengthened at all levels. The European Parliament passed a resolution last week on this subject in which stated it was "deeply concerned that democratic accountability in the EMU [the fourth building block] has not so far been tackled properly in the Council's deliberations".

In the short period given to me to make my opening remarks I will be telegraphic and will not go into detail. I will look briefly at what I see as some of the key challenges in ensuring democratic accountability and some ways by which this could be better achieved. I will finish by saying a few words about the European Parliament elections in 2014 and the views within the Parliament as to how they might be made more European in nature.

In respect of the key challenges in ensuring democratic accountability, at which the committee has been looking for the past few months, it will always be a difficult task to ensure the accountability of EU-related actions and activities for a number of reasons. Obviously, the complexity of EU structures, the very technical nature of many of its activities, the question of to whom one is accountable - Europeans as a whole, national citizens, etc. - and the very different national mentalities and cultures of 27 and soon to be 28 member states are issues. It has been made even more difficult because it is no longer just about the adoption of EU laws. When one looks at the adoption of EU laws, one can see that the European Parliament has much stronger powers than it used to have. Since the Lisbon treaty, it co-decides with the member states on almost every European law and can amend or even reject them. The committee has seen this in the past few weeks with the negotiations the Presidency is carrying out on the multi-annual financial framework, the CAP, fisheries and many other key policy areas.

When we are talking about EU laws, accountability is less direct than with national parliaments. However, one has the yellow and orange card systems and the possibility of making contributions to the EU legal process. The response to the economic crisis has led to new laws such as the six-pack, the two-pack and now the evolving laws on banking union. What I want to emphasise, in particular, is that the Economic and Monetary Union developments have also reinforced the non-legislative activities of the European Union for which democratic accountability is even more difficult to achieve. A few obvious examples are ex-anteco-ordination of national economic policies, the economic semester, ex-postreporting and monitoring of implementation to see if measures are being properly implemented and enhanced co-operation in which not all member states take part - the obvious example being the financial transaction tax - and the other intergovernmental activities in which not every member state participates such as the measures in the fiscal stability treaty. All of these are more difficult for the European Parliament and national parliaments to account for democratically. They are more Executive-driven and there is less chance to amend or reject them.

What are the possible solutions? In the short period available I will concentrate on process questions, but, of course, the most important things relate to policy. In respect of institutional developments, one thing that may well happen, although not in the short term, is further treaty change. This may include new and stronger rules for democratic accountability, more powers for the European Parliament and, possibly, revisiting the powers of national parliaments. All of these are desirable, but they will involve tough negotiations and will not be available for some time. A variant is more informal agreements between the institutions which the European Parliament is always very keen to negotiate. These would be inter-institutional agreements between the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament such that the Parliament has more say in the process.

Another way of doing it is to build new control powers into individual EU measures. Again, who would participate in these measures? Would it be countries of the eurozone or all states? Would it be intergovernmental or within the EU system?

There are internal changes that could be made. First, the European Parliament could spend more time on these non-legislative powers. It is quite difficult because the European Parliament has fewer formal powers in these areas and it is more difficult to build a real role for itself. It has tried to use its budgetary powers and other formal powers to have more powers in the non-legislative areas, but it is a difficult task. There are a number of techniques that could be used and that have been used in some committees, for example, implementation question time within individual committees and not focusing on new laws but asking questions in the much more informal setting of a committee rather than at a full plenary. There are a number of other ways at which the European Parliament has been looking. It makes much use of the rapporteur system, whereby one individual member of a committee is empowered to draw up a report on a particular subject. One of the suggestions made is that they should not just monitor the adoption of new legislation but also follow through on its implementation. In other words, their role should continue for longer. It involves a person becoming the expert on a particular area and helping to focus debate on it.

The next issue is how to strengthen the role of national parliaments, which is the focus of the committee's inquiry. I emphasise the need for further co-operation between the European Parliament and national parliaments. Some 20 ago when I was working with parliamentary committees, there was relativy little contact between the European Parliament and national parliaments. The process has developed significantly in the past 20 years, but clearly there is scope, not just for formal co-operation but also for informal co-operation, which will probably be even more important in the long run. I will not go into detail, although I am happy to come back on questions. One thing that will be hugely important in the future is making better use of national parliament contributions on legislation and feeding it into the work of European Parliament committees. One has subsidiarity control with the yellow and orange card system. Increasingly, however, national parliaments are making contributions which can be on legislation, but they can also be on communications and non-legislative texts. They are increasingly being sent to the sectoral committees of the European Parliament, but there is much scope for them to play more of a role and for more account to be taken of them in the future.

Another very important issue is that of increasing openness and transparency in all its aspects. This involves access to documents, better information on what is being proposed and discussed and texts being more clearly written rather than in jargon. Providing better information for citizens on how the European Union works is also very important. The Danish Parliament has a very good system for informing its citizens about the European Parliament. It was one of the things that inspired the European Parliament to have its own visitor centre which has been in operation in Brussels for a couple of years and has been hugely successful in giving people an idea about the European Union, the history of the European Parliament, how it works and a flavour of it.

Obviously, these are all ways by which changes could be made. What are the preconditions for this to work based on my experience in the European Parliament?

One, of course, is adequate resources to finance the necessary expertise, because democratic accountability within the European Parliament, and probably within in all parliaments, is very people-intensive. To do the job well, especially in these non-legislative areas, takes a lot of resources. Another precondition is for adequate time to be set aside. Within the European Parliament there was always a tendency for the non-legislative work to be crowded out by the legislative work, where the European Parliament had real powers. It is very important that adequate time is set aside for the non-legislative control work. Another very important precondition, especially in relations between the European Parliament and national parliaments, is continuity of contacts. I was involved, from the European Parliament side in committees, in accompanying members of parliaments at many inter-parliamentary meetings. As the clerk for the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety committee, for example - my last job before I came to this one - I went to approximately four or five meetings of environment committees. At national parliament and European Parliament level there were different members on each occasion, which undercut continuity of contact. I know how difficult it is to achieve somewhat greater continuity, but it helps a lot. Priority setting is important too. Any parliament - and the European Parliament is no exception - has to pick its battles. There is so much within the European Union that priority setting is absolutely key.

At the moment the European Union is perceived as remote and dominated by one or more big member states. There needs to be far more emphasis on strengthening the community method and on getting all member states involved. There needs to be - to use a tired but extraordinarily important word - solidarity between the member states and better implementation of what has been agreed. One thing that has developed a great deal but in a rather uneven way in the debate on economic and monetary union is readiness to criticise individual member states. There was always an unspoken rule that one did not criticise other states, and that has become a more important feature, but is also a very sensitive and difficult one.

Finally, I will comment briefly on the European Parliament elections and the views within the Parliament as to how these might be made more European in nature. The slogan that will be used is "This time, it's different." It refers to two aspects: one, of course, is the fact that since the Lisbon treaty the European Parliament has more powers in terms of budget, agriculture, fisheries and almost all legislative areas. The other aspect is that it is the intention of the political groups in the Parliament to make the elections more European and more political than before. Two weeks ago the Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted the Duff report on a Commission communication on the conduct of the European elections, and that will come up soon - perhaps in the next plenary session - for final adoption within the Parliament. The report highlights three proposed changes, one of which is to bring forward the date of the elections. This has already been decided, so we now know that the next European Parliament elections will not take place in June, as they always have in the past, but over the four days between 22 and 25 May. The purpose of this was largely to allow more time to choose the Commission - first the President of the Commission and then the hearings of all the Irish and other Commissioners - so that the job can be done properly before the summer break and before the Parliament returns to normal legislative mode in the autumn. In the past this has been telescoped into the month of July. The idea is to have more time to do this. That is one of the key reasons for the change of date. The Duff report also puts forward several other suggestions, such as insisting that in countries where candidates are chosen only at the last moment, this be done at least six weeks in advance. I do not think that will be a problem in Ireland, but it is in some countries. It recommends having more women candidates than before, if possible, and equality, if possible, in list systems and so on.

The second big change is that European political parties are being encouraged to be on the ballot papers for the next European elections. The Parliament wants national political parties to publicise their European political party affiliations when they come to the next election. That is a national competence at the moment but the European Parliament is trying to encourage them to put names and, if possible, emblems on ballot papers and, if possible, to have political broadcasts by the European political parties.

The third change is perhaps the most controversial and difficult of all: to have nominations from the European political parties for post of President of the European Commission. The Parliament wants the political parties to put these candidates forward sufficiently in advance. It asks that national parties taking part in the elections say whom they support and wishes to promote the political programmes of these candidates through a series of public debates between the different candidates and so on. We do not know how this will work out for the selection of the President of the Commission. The Duff report talks of encouraging the Parliament and the European Council to agree on the method for doing this by common accord. The Committee on Constitutional Affairs stated that it "expects that 'the candidate for Commission President who was put forward by the European political party that wins the most seats in the Parliament will be the first to be considered' with a view to 'ascertaining his or her ability to secure the support of the necessary absolute majority in Parliament'."

I am very happy to answer any questions and look forward to working with this committee and its staff over the coming period. I thank the committee for its attention.

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

I thank Mr. Jacobs for his presentation and for coming in today. Before I ask for contributions from the floor I would like some clarification on a few of the points that Mr. Jacobs raised. He mentioned how European Parliament committees could take more input from national parliaments and spoke about the yellow card and so on. Does he envisage that people from national parliaments would attend committees of the European Parliament? What are his thoughts on how that link-up could be improved?

Second, he mentioned the Danish Parliament's initiative to increase awareness among Danish citizens of the work of the European Parliament. As I am not familiar with that work, could he outline what exactly it does? We could then see whether we could do something similar here.

Many of us would welcome the proposal and prospect of having a real European election as opposed to a referendum on government performance, which is what many European elections have been. What work will organisations such as the European Parliament Information Office do to put pressure on, and encourage, political parties on issues such as greater representation by women, early choice of candidates and putting out a political message based on the European vision as opposed to the local vision? What will Mr. Jacobs' organisation and others such as the European Movement be doing to try to steer the political agenda that way?

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Jacobs and thank him for coming here. I was very happy to discover when I spoke to him earlier in the hallway that he had many Reilly and O'Reilly relations in County Cavan. Indeed, Senator Kathryn Reilly may well also be related to him, but he and I have established family ties in Cavan. I will let him explain later, but it seems that on his mother's side he has a whole Cavan connection. I was delighted by that and when I heard the quality of his contribution I was convinced of the genealogy.

I have a number of issues that are a source of distress. The prospect that our level of representation in the European Parliament will decrease because of the numbers of MEPs from new member states is a source of angst for me and others. It will increase the democratic deficit and further alienation from Europe. There is an assumption that we will lose a seat and I would like Mr. Jacobs to comment on the degree to which fewer representatives will contribute to the democratic deficit and whether there are solutions to that difficulty.

As the European Parliament gets stronger and the Lisbon treaty has enshrined new powers, there is a risk that the national priorities of small countries, such as Ireland can become submerged. Mr. Jacobs's suggestion on the chairmanship of committee is a possible solution. Will he comment on the way to avoid submerging the national interest as we work with the Socialist group or the European Peoples Party, EPP or the ALDE group. What concerns me is how to advance issues, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the lack of employment opportunities that are of concern to Ireland? I know we can work on the issues in our political grouping in Europe but how does Mr. Jacobs see it working on the floor of the European Parliament?

Mr. Jacobs referred to the strength of the committee chairpersons and will Mr. Jacobs comment on the potential of seeking such a post to strengthen our position?

I think his point on the need for strong links between the European Parliament and the parliaments of member states is important. There is a need to develop a satisfactory methodologies to do that.

I agree with Mr. Jacobs that candidates standing for election in the European elections would have to state the grouping with which they would align in Europe and that there be a debate on what the various grouping stands for. That would have amusing outcomes in the Irish context. Our Chairman, Deputy Hannigan's point on achieving a gender balance was well made and I ask Mr. Jacobs to address that issue also.

I would appreciate if Mr. Jacobs would try to address some of those issues.

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

I thank Mr. Jacobs, who is a frequent and prominent visitor to the Oireachtas, for his presentation. We have been present during his many presentations on this issue. I have three specific questions. First, how likely is a treaty change in the short term? If such a change is likely, in which area is it likely to be? Second, is he aware of a change in the public perception in the context of the additional powers the European Parliament has recently gained? My sense is that there has been a shift in public understanding of the role of the European Parliament and the power it has. I do not overstate how much the needle has shifted but I think there has been a change. I am interested in hearing his perception of that issue.

Finally, in regard to further economic integration, which he referenced briefly, how does he envisage the shape of further economic integration? If I look at budgetary policy, with the two-pack, the six-pack, the fiscal treaty, it is quite difficult to see how that could move further without the role of national parliaments being radically diminished. If I look at the role of tax competency within the European Union, I find it difficult to see how that will radically shift without parliaments all over the European Union becoming very upset. I see potential for further integration in the area of a banking union, euro bonds and euro bills but beyond that, I always struggle to see to what areas people are referring, when speaking in terms of greater integration.

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

I welcome Mr. Jacobs and thank him for his contribution. This time next year we will have 600 plus fewer county councillors, and depending on the passage of the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad, we may have fewer Members of the Oireachtas in 2016. The number of politicians in Ireland will be reduced. That will give more of a profile or the possibility of a higher profile for MEPs. Does Mr. Jacobs agree that this scenario would offer an opportunity to our MEPs?

European elections are often dominated by national issues. I am sure in other countries that local and European election coincide, in order to boost turnout and save money. Will we ever reach the stage in which the elections to the European Parliament will be focused entirely on European issues? I know we have very good debates on the national media when European elections are being held. The increase in the power and influence of the European Parliament, while a positive development, has implications for the smaller member states because as such states have lower numbers of MEPs. This leads to a perception that the influence of the power of the European Parliament lies with the larger states. That is a concern, and as Deputy Joe O'Reilly stated we are likely to lose one MEP in the next review.

When it comes to choosing a President of the European Parliament, would that choice be determined by the party, the nationality of the various candidates, the language abilities of candidates, which is a positive for those who are multilingual, or the political blocs to which they belong? Would it play into the hands of those parties that chose a candidate from a smaller or a neutral country?

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

There is a number of questions. Will Mr Jacobs try to answer as many as possible?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

Deputies have asked very good questions and many of them are linked, so I will try to link them together. The Chairman asked the simplest question on the Danish Parliament.

I was referring to the Folketing visitors centre. I do not know when they set it up but all school groups who come to the Danish Parliament come here to learn how the Danish Parliamentary system works, with simulations and so on. They also started to explain the structure of the European Union.

Most questions on the European Union are to the Danish Parliament's own special centre, but I can check with my Danish counterpart and pass on the information. One advantage of my job is that we are part of a network of counterparts in all the member states. I would be very happy to provide more information on that matter.

The contributions are very important. I have always felt - I do not know how the committee feels about it - that subsidiarity can be very important in blocking some inappropriate proposals, but it is a legal concept and is difficult to interpret. It is very difficult to get the necessary number of member states. Often, the more practical approach is to express a national parliament's views on a specific issue - in a sense, to be almost a lobbyist within the process. At the moment the contributions of national parliaments come through the European Parliament's service for relations with national parliaments, which sends them on to the specific committees, but I see scope for closer links, especially between the sectoral committees within the Irish system and within other systems which now have a greater role on European matters. The Chairmanmentioned the attendance of national parliamentarians at committees. That has happened in some Parliament committees in the past. When I was on the constitutional committee there was a standing invitation for national parliamentarians who attended the committee. However, it is more important to meet in an informal way and try to get specific Irish and other national concerns into the process. An issue on which there has been some discussion, although it has not yet been developed, is video linking. I know the Irish MEPs have mentioned it when they appeared before the committee. They were very happy when the meetings were moved to Thursday because there was a chance of their being able to attend. Generally speaking, the European Parliament calendar and the Irish Parliament's calendar do not mesh. One way of dealing with the issue in a practical way is to have a video link, whether with Irish MEPs or with a rapporteur of the European Parliament who may be dealing with an important subject of interest to the committee or one of the other sectoral committees. The Parliament's committees are equipped for that possibility. It is possible that somebody could make a ten-minute presentation and be questioned directly by the committee. It is a practical way of getting a closer exchange.

The Chairman's third question was about what we are doing to publicise the elections. Obviously we are a very small office. The main way we can do that is through working with Irish NGOs, the European movement, the National Women's Council, the youth networks and so on. In the next few months I will be meeting with as many groups as I can to see how they are going to publicise the European elections. The National Women's Council and groups such as the 5050 Group are trying to promote greater participation by female candidates. Obviously we will be talking to them to see what we can do. The most practical way we can do it is to work with other organisations.

Deputy Joe O'Reilly mentioned the loss of one seat for Ireland in the European Parliament, which was finally voted on by the Parliament last week. It was a very difficult process because the Lisbon treaty provided for a ceiling of 751 Members of the European Parliament. When Croatia became a member without a further treaty change, a number of seats needed to found for it. The constitutional committee considered the issue and decided that no country should lose more than one seat. As a result, 11 countries have lost seats, including Ireland. It was passed last week by a very large majority, but the vast majority of Irish Members voted against it. There is one important clause in the resolution that was passed - that is, that before the next European elections, the Parliament, which has the right of initiative on its own size - normally it is the Commission, but in this case it is the Parliament - will return to this issue and examine whether it is fair from the bigger to the smaller states. Certainly the Irish Members argued that it is not fair that after the next election the 11 Irish MEPs will be representing more voters than the Danish, Finish and Slovak members, which are the next countries that are not losing seats. The principle of digressive proportionality, which sounds horrible, is a mathematical formula. All it means is that the bigger a member state, the more individuals MEPs are supposed to represent, from a maximum of 96 for Germany down to the minimum of six for Luxembourg, Malta and others.

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

That is the way the system works. Is Mr. Jacobs saying that will change within the next five years and, if so, why? Is it because of population growth?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

It is partly because of population shift. The Irish Members pointed out that Ireland has had the fastest population growth of any member state, yet it is losing a seat. Next time, population growth should be one of the factors to be considered. For example, at one stage Italy, France and the UK, all of which have the same number of seats in the European Parliament, had roughly similar populations. Italy's population has stagnated while that of the UK has grown, but France's population has grown the most, so that it now has 3 million or 4 million more people than Italy although it has only one more seat. The UK and Italy have the same number of seats although the UK has 2 million more people than Italy. The whole issue needs to be examined. Spain is under-represented in the European Parliament in terms of population per MEP. There are a number of anomalies, including Ireland. The idea is that before the next elections that issue should be examined in order to arrive at a fair system of digressive proportionality.

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

What is the phrase "regressive proportionality"?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

It is "digressive proportionality". It is an awful bit of jargon.

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

What does "digressive proportionality" mean?

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

May I explain? Among the 28 countries, as will be the case from July, the country with the most seats has a greater population per seat than the next country down. For example, for the country with the greatest number of seats, which is Germany, there could be one seat for every 800,000 people; the next country down - the UK or whatever - could have one seat per 798,000 people, and it will go all the way down to Malta, at the bottom, which has one seat for every-----

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

It has a population of 400,000 and has six seats, which is one for every 70,000 people.

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

That is digressive proportionality: no two countries have the same population per seat. That is possible because we are talking about millions of people. Does that explain the issue?

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

Why is it digressive?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

It is supposed to be digressive, but the European Parliament did this very quickly and it is not properly digressive. If it was proportional, which the German constitutional court would love, and if there really was a federal united states of Europe, then Germany would have 170 or 180 MEPs and Malta and Luxembourg would have one. One can work it out one's self. What has happened is a compromise, because the European Union system is already complicated enough. If it was like the United States, as some have suggested, there would two chambers in the European Parliament, one in which Ireland would have the same number of Members as Germany and another one which would be proportional. In the US, California has 60 congressmen and two senators while Wyoming has one congressman and two senators. That has been debated by many people within the European Parliament, but it is seen as making the system, which is already complicated enough, even more complicated. This is why, within one European Parliament, the term "digressive proportionality" is an example of the horrible jargon I mentioned earlier.

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

I believe it comes from a University of Cambridge paper.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

I do not know where it comes from but, unfortunately, it is too commonly used. That is the idea.

Joe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They would have some trouble relating to that in Fatima Mansions.

Mr. Francis Jacob:

There is a more fundamental point, which the Deputy and others have raised.

It is what happens if Ireland has 11 seats in maintaining its influence. Obviously, it is difficult. At the same time the system in the European Parliament is not just a simple majority-minority system. There is a separation of powers in that it is a Parliament in which there is not a permanent majority or minority. It varies from issue to issue, which gives great opportunities for different coalitions. It means that, for example, on agriculture the Irish Members will make alliances with French and many other nationalities. On issues of importance to Ireland there will be allies within the political groups within the Parliament.

There will probably be 20 committees next time - I imagine there will be the same number of committees and possibly even one or two more - and 11 Members will have to cover them. Their staff will have to cover the committees they cannot attend. It means that it is even more important to identify the national interests that must be defended by coalitions with others within the European Parliament. It does not vote along simple national lines. It rarely votes with all German Members on one side or all French Members on another. They are normally divided, which gives many possibilities for making coalitions. This is probably not a satisfactory answer, but it is the only one I can give. There are many possibilities. This is a very open Parliament and it is a question of identifying the key issues which need to be defended and what is the best way of doing this within each political family.

On European Parliament and national parliament relations, this will be the key in the future. The European Parliament obviously has many new powers. It is a very powerful parliament, but it is more remote from citizens than national parliaments, which is why these two tiers of democratic accountability are complementary. That sometimes sounds theoretical, but the key will be to try to make it work on specific issues in a practical way, in some of the ways I mentioned. That applies particularly at political level, but it is also very important at staff level.

One of the important elements of my job and those of my counterparts in the member states is to follow the debate within the national parliaments. As the committee knows, I attend quite a few of its meetings, to which I attach great importance. I work very closely with, for example, Mr. Derek Dignam, the committee's representative in Brussels with the directorate for relations with national parliaments, who will be coming here next week for the meeting of the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs, COSAC, and, where necessary, the sectoral committees of the Parliament. If something comes up in the Irish Parliament which I think is of interest to a sectoral committee, I try to bring it to the attention of my colleagues there. It is a drop in the ocean, but it can help a little. If there is any way I can help in that regard, I am very willing to do it because it is an important practical backup to the political work the Irish MEPs and the committee do.

There was also a question on promoting gender balance. Obviously, it boils down to individual decisions at national level. The European Parliament cannot impose it in European Parliament elections. There have been many resolutions in the Parliament on this subject, encouraging individual parties and political groups, especially when there are list systems where it is easier to have a balance between younger and older candidates and a gender balance, and national parliaments to take it more seriously. Where the Parliament will have a big impact on gender issues is on the choice of the next Commission. As the committee knows, the Parliament must first vote on the President of the Commission and can say yes or no. Afterwards, while it cannot vote on individual Commissioners, it can vote on the Commission as a whole. One of the preconditions is that if there is not a 50:50 balance, there is an adequate number of women candidates and the maximum degree of gender balance among all the national Members.

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

How is "adequate" defined?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

There is no numerical requirement because, obviously, the Parliament must be flexible. However, it has tried to insist on at least one third or more being women candidates. A country putting forward a woman nominee - so far it has been that way rather than the other way round - is obviously already winning some support for itself, as long as the candidate is good in quality terms. In fact, the candidate the Parliament did not like the last time and who had to be withdrawn was the Bulgarian candidate who was a woman. She was replaced by another Bulgarian woman candidate who was an excellent candidate and easily passed her confirmation hearing.

The confirmation hearings are a really gruelling process lasting over two hours. Many factors are taken into account during them. They are based, to some extent, on the US model. When they were set up for the first time in the early 1990s, the European Parliament sent some of its staff and politicians to the United Stated to see how the Americans did it and learn positive and negative lessons from the US confirmation hearings process.

Deputy Seán Kyne mentioned the issue of the European elections inevitably being more on national issues. I believe that will be the case for a long time. Inevitably, it is an opportunity to raise issues. That is why many people in the European Parliament are worried about next year's elections, at a time when there could still be a severe economic crisis in many countries. It could be a chance to protest against incumbent governments and protest parties could do very well in the elections in many countries. There is a great deal of concern about this. What the European Parliament is trying to do, especially by having a more presidential election, is to have some of the Europe-wide issues raised. If the Greens group, the socialist group, the European People's Party, the left socialists and the European United Left, GUE, group within the Parliament have candidates for the post of President, it is not only a chance for that person to gain a higher profile but also for the political programme of that political group to be diffused better throughout the European Union. It is a policy option opportunity, as well as a personality matter.

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

The campaigns cannot start until we know who is running and we cannot decide who is running until the boundaries are reviewed to take account of the new number of seats Ireland will have. Will Mr. Jacobs outline the procedure for the boundary commission, when and how that will be formed and when and how it will report?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

I am not sure. I will try to find out a little more about it. I understand the process could not even be started until the formal decision was taken. Now we have reached the point where it can be done and I presume it will take place early in the autumn. Incidentally, Ireland is unique in requiring an adaptation of constituencies. The other ten countries which have lost seats just reduce the list by one person. There are some other countries with constituencies, but I am not aware that any of them has formally lost seats. None of the countries that has lost seats will require a boundary commission to reallocate constituencies. In that sense, Ireland is unique.

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

Is it up to the Minister to set it up?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

Yes. It is a national decision.

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

Further, is the competence regarding the number of seats and the size of constituencies a national one?

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

Yes, it is a national competence. It is a national decision.

It is up to the Irish Government to decide whether to have free seats and whether to have two or four seats and one would be free, or one in five would be free, or two would be free-----

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

Or one of 11.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

-----or there would be one for the whole country. The only reason I mentioned that is that I remember the late Brian Lenihan giving a talk in our building and saying that maybe one day that will happen. The assumption is that the constituencies will continue but the basis on which it will do comes under purely national competence.

There was a long debate in the European Parliament about having a uniform electoral system and it was abandoned because there were too many differences between the member states. The compromise reached was that there should be a few key principles which were common such as proportionality, which is why the British eventually had to abandon the first past the post system for the European elections, as it was distorting the political balance in the European Parliament. In 1979 there were 22 Conservatives more than they would have been proportionally. The Conservatives were not too worried about that but in 1994 when there were 20 more socialists because the British Labour Party got 60 out of the 75 seats, or whatever number it was, the Conservatives started to take it seriously and it was later changed during Tony Blair's period as Prime Minister. The principle of each system had to be proportional but it was up to each member state whether to have a single transferable vote, open lists, closed lists and so on.

An idea that was put forward but which has not gone anywhere, which Andrew Duff, the rapporteur, and some other members, have long advocated, is that, in addition to the individual member states, there should be one Europe-wide constituency where candidates who would stand at a Europe-wide level. However, that idea was dropped in favour of the idea of having candidates for President of the Commission for the obvious reason that it would mean that countries like Ireland and others would have even fewer seats. There is great reluctance to go down that route, although some people have posed the question, would that not give a more European flavour to the elections, but others have said the European Union is not ready for that, that is not yet a federal system and therefore that would be too federal an element. That idea, which has been put forward by some in the Parliament, has never had a majority. I cannot envisage it having a majority in the foreseeable future but some members have advocated it.

Deputy Donohoe's questions are difficult ones for me to answer because treaty change in the past has typically happened in a very ad hoc way. A series of demands built up for areas where problems emerged for a country or a group of countries and eventually there was a compromise where a number of these concerns were put together and it was decided to draw up a treaty. There was not a master plan to provide that this is what we need to do at European level. It has been very much an ad hoc process and this may have been part of the problem of getting the public on-side. There was an attempt to get away with that in the Constitutional Convention held a few years ago when John Bruton was on the presidium, Dick Roche was the Government representative, Proinsias De Rossa was another member and John Gormley was there as well. It was a mixture of national and European parliamentarians who examined the structure of the European Union to see where treaty changes needed to be made. There are still many people in the Parliament who like this method of debate between the European Parliament and national parliaments - rather than it being decided by executives - on what does and not does not need to be changed and putting that forward for the future. The discussion currently tends to be, as the Deputy said, on a complete banking union, Angela Merkel saying that we need a treaty change to do that and other members saying what we should do on another area. This is currently done on an ad hoc basis. The only thing on which the Parliament is very strong and, I am sure, on which the committee would be very strong, is that whatever changes are needed they need to strengthen this democratic accountability element. That is critical if European citizens are to be brought on board.

The Deputy also mentioned the public perception of the European Parliament. One may or may not like opinion polls. We have a very regular measure of this; the Eurobarometer does a series of polls, many of which ask questions about faith and trust in the European institutions, including the European Parliament. We also have our own small opinion poll unit. It does not do its own polls but it helps to commission some, focusing more particularly on the role of the European Parliament. I am happy to share with the committee the work with which it comes up. Unsurprisingly, it shows that the economic crisis has led to a drop in the support for and popularity of all the European Union institutions and the EU as a whole - the Parliament, the Commission and the Council are all less trusted than they were a few years ago. An interesting consideration is that when there is economic recovery, will that change and, if so, how quickly? The biggest problem the European Parliament has is its distance from citizens. It has very great powers.

As the Deputy said, there are 11 Irish MEPs who have to cover the whole range of European Parliament activities which are becoming increasingly complex. They have to meet and look after their constituents and attend committee meetings and plenary sessions, and that is the same for all members of the European Parliament. They have to look after the home base, take part in an increasingly difficult legislative and non-legislative control and accountability work and inevitably sometimes citizens find that they are a bit remote.

There is a wider problem of trust in the whole political process, therefore, the turnout in elections has decreased in even national elections, but it is something of which we must be very aware. As the European Parliament has got more powerful, the turnout in elections has tended to go down rather up. A key factor recently has been the big enlargement in 2004 where a large number of new member states joined. The turnout in even national elections in some of the new member states have been very low and they have been new lows. One of the new member states has only a 17% turnout in the last European Parliament elections and that brought down the overall turnout considerably. That member state was Slovakia. The percentage turnout in Poland was in the low 20s. Of the older member states, the only one in which the turnout has been consistently at a very low level is the United Kingdom, where the turnout has fluctuated between 24% and 36%.

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

Those figures are typical of the turnout in a by-election.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

Yes, but the average has slipped down for the whole of the European Parliament to about 45%. The US Congress, regardless of whether one likes it or does not like it, is a very powerful parliament and yet the turnout in mid-term elections is typically 40% to 50% as well. That percentage turnout is not very high for the US Congress. That is not a defence or an argument and clearly one of the key challenges will be to try to raise turnouts in individual countries and in Europe as a whole. The turnout at elections is an important factor in the legitimacy of all parliaments.

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

We will be having our local elections on the same day. I assume they will be brought forward as well.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

Certainly that has helped in the past in terms of the turnout. I do not know what will happen in terms of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention. One of the ideas considered was that the presidential elections in the future would be held on the same day but that was rejected by the Constitutional Convention.

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

We may have a referendum on the same day as the European elections and that might boost the turnout. If we have a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad on the same day that might encourage people to come out to vote and increase the turnout.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

I hope I have answered most of the members' questions.

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

I think you have.

Mr. Francis Jacobs:

There were very broad and important questions.

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

On behalf of the committee, I thank you very much for coming along here today, for your presentation and for answering those questions. You mentioned that you might be able to send on some material and that would be very useful.

We have a number of other meetings scheduled over the next month or so before we can conclude the piece of work we are doing on the future of Europe. No doubt, when that report comes out, Mr. Jacobs will receive a copy of it. I again thank Mr. Jacobs for attending today. The committee will now go into private session.