Good morning everyone and I’m delighted to be here today as you discuss an issue that is essential not just to the European project but also for our understanding of some of the democractic challenges that currently face us.

The ability of the people to influence both the making of and the implementation of laws that affect their daily lives is the essence of democracy. But it is also critical to our human need for autonomy and for control over our world, the feeling that we matter and that the destiny of our lives is not just determined by others.

In our increasingly globalised and interconnected societies – and in a world where new technologies are exerting significant levels of control over the political agenda - it can be easy for ordinary individuals to believe, or to be led to believe, that neither they nor their national parliaments have control over the laws that govern the world in which they live. It is no coincidence that the leaders of the UK Brexit campaign used the slogan ‘Take back control’ during the referendum knowing that it appealed to a deep seated political and psychological need in many people.

But when people feel they have lost control, the credibility and legitimacy of our law making institutions suffer, even where they are ostensibly democratic.

The ‘lack of control’ narrative is frequently used by Eurosceptics to attack the EU. However, some pro EU politicians and influencers also feed this narrative when they publicly blame “Brussels” to their domestic audiences for laws or political developments that are perceived negatively. Very often, they do so even when they were involved in taking the decisions on the issue that they subsequently criticise or are reluctant to apply.

This is something I have sought to address through my work on the transparency of the EU’s decision-making processes, most recently in my inquiry on the accountability of decision-making in Council which is currently before the European Parliament. The right of an EU citizen to know the positions being adopted by their Governments when legislating in Brussels should not be any less than it is when the same Government is proposing and agreeing legislation at home.

*********

The EU has various tools in place to give the public a say in how EU laws are being made and applied. The most obvious are infringement complaints. The Commission launched 716 infringement proceedings last year alone, many of which were based on complaints by ordinary interested parties.

For those who have the means, legal proceedings can also be effective, as we saw again in September with regard to the rights of posted workers. Through public consultations, citizens and interested parties can use their experience of how existing EU law is applied to try and effect change to those laws. The European Citizens Initiative is obviously another important tool although not yet developed to its full potential.

My Office and that of other ombudsmen can also play a part. We act as the bridge between the citizen and the national administration but through our collaboration through the European Network of Ombudsmen we are trying to build a similar bridge between the citizen and the EU administration when their problems have an EU legislative dimension. We have also started to carry our parallel investigations, where a matter of significant public interest has both a national and an EU legislative underpinning and where our combined work can have greater force.

As you know, the Lisbon Treaty formally established the direct role of national parliaments in the EU process. National parliaments have a clearly defined role to play, whether through their long-standing functions, such as transposing directives, or through newer mechanisms such as the yellow card procedure. European affairs committees are also important bodies in this process.

The interparliamentary dialogue has sought to make this role more concrete, and I am encouraged that you are also looking at the application of EU law today, and not just law-making.

However, beyond the mechanisms and procedures that exist for citizens and national parliaments to exert influence, it is crucial that they and you feel, and are made to feel, empowered to play this role.

This implies not just raising awareness about and encouraging people to take advantage of the tools that exist, but ensuring that, when citizens or national parliaments seek to exert influence, their efforts are taken seriously. Member State parliaments can be and should be powerful players in helping to make meaningful links between the citizen and the EU institutions

As a concrete example of what I mean by this, I would point to the European Citizens Initiative.

Beyond whatever structural changes are made in the context of the current reform of the ECI, perhaps a more fundamental issue is the gap between the expectations of the ECI organisers and the actual measures proposed by the Commission to ultimately follow-up on their demands.

If we look at the first-ever successful ECI, on the ‘Right to Water’, it took almost four years for the Commission to bring forward a legislative proposal in response to the initiative. While there are various reaons for this, it was no doubt frustrating for those involved that their efforts took so long to have a direct legal impact.

Further reflection is perhaps needed on how to respond to and manage the expectations of citizens or parliamentarians seeking to exercise influence over the EU law-making and enforcement process. But the most important place to start is at the level of simple awareness, the need for citizens and parliamentarians to know precisely how their voices can be heard.

******

As we look ahead to the European elections in 2019, which will be a litmus test for how the EU is responding to Eurosceptic populism, this should be a top priority: ensuring that the public, whose interest the EU is here to serve, feels that it does have influence over the laws that are made in the European institutions. Thank you for listening. I look forward to the rest of the meeting.