Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I consider this to be of great importance. It is important legislation because the European elections that will take place on 23 May are of major importance for Ireland and the European Union. Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has alluded to how we often underestimate the importance of the European Parliament and the importance of taking these elections seriously. As citizens and voters, often we underestimate how important and heavily weighted our individual votes are.

I have heard a good deal of hand wringing and expressions of disappointment about the fact we are losing a seat in the European Parliament, and I share these to some extent. Obviously, numbers are important. Would that we had retained our 12 seats rather than reducing to 11. However, I do not accept this automatically means a loss of influence. It is up to us how influential we are in the European Parliament. I have no doubt Deputy Mathews will allude to the matter in a moment but, in fact, quality matters a good deal more than quantity.

I have some experience of the European Parliament. I spent one week of every month, at a minimum, there for the first six months of 2013, sitting in plenary sessions from 9 a.m. until midnight on occasion. I participated in committee meetings and I negotiated with the chief operators in the European Parliament on a range of files.

The reality is that the European Parliament is a parliament which functions extraordinarily well. It is a far better functioning parliament then this dysfunctional Parliament, unfortunately, although fortunately for Europe, I suppose. It is a place where merit actually matters. Committee Chairs and rapporteurs on legislation and policy must know what they are doing. They will not get those jobs if they are not competent and capable of executing those tasks. As we know, that is not the case in these Houses, sadly. One example of this, dating back a decade or so, was the election of Mr. Pat Cox, who was part of one of the smaller groups in the European Parliament, the liberal group. He managed to rise through the ranks and on the basis of his ability and competence, he became President of the European Parliament. He was from a small country and a small political grouping. That would not happen in these Houses, clearly. Let us not underestimate the calibre and quality of individuals in the European Parliament.

I see this legislation and the decision made by the Minister in setting out the terms of reference for the European Parliament constituency committee last summer as a missed opportunity.

We had a chance here to shake up our system of electing representatives to the European Parliament and how we go about ensuring the best possible representation for this country. Like others, I made submissions to the constituency boundary committee setting out a range of options, including a national list system and a series of single-seat constituencies. A number of commentators suggested a combination of both systems, that is, several single-seat constituencies and a national list system, whereby people would be voting far more based on the national perspective and interest and less in accordance with local concerns and geographical interests. This legislation represents a missed opportunity. As with many issues in this country, we are great at talking about political reform and radical change, but when it comes to the crunch we tend to dodge it.

Some months ago, I shared a platform with a former Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Brendan Halligan, a person who is well known to many in this House, at a conference held in tribute to Dr. Garret FitzGerald. Mr. Halligan delivered a paper in which he analysed the role of small member states within the context of the European Union. He highlighted how Dr. FitzGerald, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, shaped Ireland's foreign policy, via its European Union policy, by advancing the common interest of smaller member states within the European Union. It was a fascinating lecture. One of the interesting insights Mr. Halligan provided was that in 1973, when we first faced the prospect of direct elections to the European Parliament, the Government led by Liam Cosgrave deliberated long and hard on the idea of moving away from the traditional multi-seat constituencies. That Government gave serious consideration to doing something radically different for the direction elections to the European Parliament rather than simply aping the Dáil electoral system. Ultimately, however, the proposal to move away from multi-seat constituencies and instead use a national list system was not implemented. It is interesting to recall that these issues were being considered at that time. Here we are, 41 years later, wringing our hands and still talking about the need to change how we approach the engagement we have as voters with the European Parliament.

I noted Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's interesting remarks. I very much appreciate that different people have different perspectives and concerns when it comes to the European Union. Nobody has a monopoly on all the wisdom on this issue. However, I disagree with the Deputy in terms of his fear of the European Parliament encroaching on the Council. The European Union has become much larger in recent years, with 28 member states and a range of aspirant member states in the Balkans and other parts of eastern Europe as well as northern Europe. The larger the Union becomes, the more unwieldy it will be if we do not have genuine democratic accountability within its institutions. One of the longest-standing criticisms of the European project, and an issue I have raised on various occasions in the past, is the deficit of accountability and transparency within the Union and the need to balance the interests of small and large member states. There is no simple solution in this regard, but one of the most important vehicles for genuine direct engagement between citizens and the European institutions is the Parliament. In fact, one could say it is the only fully and legitimately democratic institution within the Union.

The membership of the Commission consists merely of a series of political appointments. When we talk about quality, calibre and so on, it becomes clear that our appointment to the Commission is extremely important. It should not be a political quick fix as it has been in the past. Instead, we must ensure that we select the right person, with the right credentials and qualities and the capacity to deliver for Ireland at the European table. Every member state is represented equally on the Commission, which is good. On the other hand, the Commission is not accountable to the voting public across Europe. Nor is the Council directly accountable other than in the sense that it represents the Governments of each of the member states. The only directly accountable institution is the European Parliament. We cannot underestimate or understate just how important that is.

The European Parliament has become far more influential in decision making since the Lisbon treaty. This is a very welcome development. My experience showed that engaging with Members of the European Parliament, particularly those who have real expertise in certain areas, such as finance, economics or monetary policy, enhances the process at European level. Several of the solutions to the financial crisis that were mooted in recent years, such as the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism and the proposal for eurobonds - the latter has not yet been adopted but I remain hopeful it will be - came from the European Parliament, not the Council of Ministers or the Commission. Those ideas and concepts came organically from the Chamber and the committees of the European Parliament. The latter has proven itself to be representative, more in touch with citizens' concerns than the other institutions of the Union, and very analytical in terms of its approach to policy making and legislation. When I was Minister of State, I spent a great deal of time in the Chamber debating issues such as the regulation of ratings agencies - something that is critical in the context of the recent economic crisis - accountability for banks, and banker's bonuses. Some might say the latter is a populist issue but I consider it relevant and important in the context of accountability to our citizens. All of those proposals were enhanced, if not originated, in the European Parliament.

Let us not underestimate how valuable the Parliament is. We should not see it as a threat but rather as a very important vehicle of legitimacy and democracy for the European Union. I regret that the Minister has not been bold enough to change radically how we elect our MEPs. The quality and calibre of those Members is vital for this State and all member states of the European Union. We have some fine MEPs and some not so fine MEPs. I hope we will see an improvement in the overall performance and quality of our representatives in the European Parliament after the forthcoming election.

See this speech in context