Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, I thank the witnesses for their report and I am glad that at its very outset they made the distinction between a quantitative analysis, of that which can be quantified, rather than a qualitative analysis. For example, I was struck by the high level of attendance at 93%. Did the witnesses ever track how many people went into a meeting and remained there for its entirety, as opposed to going in, registering their attendance and then leaving? That would be my concern. This obviously is something the European Movement has been doing for four years.

To what extent are people playing the witnesses' game, so to speak, by registering their presence?

The witnesses referred to attendance. Is that attendance and voting because I understand voting takes place in a bloc? Do they track the voting records as well as the attendance records?

Regarding speeches, if I understand correctly, the average European Union parliamentary speech is one minute. We need to be clear about what we are talking about when it comes to quantity and quality.

I was more interested in some of the other figures. The number of Irish rapporteurs, for example, is quite good at six in comparison with one in 2010. The number of opinions by Irish rapporteurs went from nine in 2010 down to three, and has been consistently low for the past number of years. What is the reason for that?

My colleague, Senator Burke, raised what I would call the dramatic drop in attendance at parliamentary committees from 76% to 42%. That is more a qualitative indicator. My memory of the European Parliament and parliamentary committees is that parliamentary committees take more engagement than plenary sessions. Have the witnesses examined the reason that would have been the case in terms of the drop in attendance at the parliamentary committees?

In terms of a qualitative-quantitative approach, have the witnesses done what I would call more soft data analysis of the statistics? For example, regarding the performance of MEPs, do they track their engagement with media? Do they track, in so far as they can, their engagement with the public, in other words, any public meetings they may hold? Do they give them the facility to give them that type of information? Do they invite them to give them that type of information? It would be very interesting to know not the 93% of them who can come in and press a button and register their attendance but how they are engaging with their electorate, and the methods they are using to engage with their electorate. For example, to what extent has the use of social media changed since the witnesses started tracking these data?

Taking a more broad-based approach, as the witnesses did towards the end of their presentation, about the values of Europe to the citizen, to what extent do they believe there may be a certain disenchantment with the slow progress we are making on social Europe and in particular the extent to which people are fatigued by austerity?

The witnesses are commenting on the drop in the number of people voting in EU elections. Again, to what extent is that to do with the rapid pace of enlargement and the fact that people cannot, for the sake of argument, name all 28 members of the Union? Also, to what extent do the witnesses think the growth of, say, euroscepticism in the United Kingdom and the wider debate on whether the UK will remain a member of the Union is having an effect on the broader enthusiasm for the European project in Ireland?