I welcome the delegation from the Swedish Parliament, the Riksdag, who attend the committee today for an exchange of views. Committee members meet regularly with Mrs. Segelstrom at the COSAC meetings and she is particularly welcome. If she wishes to make some opening comments, we will then have an exchange of views.
I formally thank the delegation for bringing the Swedish weather with them. We had been enjoying good weather until now.
We are pleased to attend and that the committee was able to receive us. We know that this is a busy time for Ireland as it takes care of the European Union for us. We are eager to come to Ireland and to hear how you work with various issues because we feel that your country and ours are very close. Ireland and Sweden are both small countries with similar ideas on how to solve many questions. We have together found solutions regarding many important issues, from increasing the effectiveness of the European Union to solving neutrality issues, and our countries share the belief that both need the European Union for the future, and in regard to full employment and other issues.
As your way of working with European Union issues in the Irish Parliament is quite different from ours, I would like the committee to give us a short introduction regarding how Ireland sees its role during its Presidency. We will then have questions on certain matters but it would be interesting for our delegation if we could first have a short introduction.
The role of this committee has changed significantly during the current Parliament - since the election of 2002 - in two ways. First, the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002 was passed which requires the Government to send to this committee in advance all proposals for regulations and directives within four weeks of their being received by a Government Department. There is therefore a sub-committee of this committee which meets every two weeks and in the last year examined something like 400 draft regulations or draft directives. That sub-committee decides whether to recommend further scrutiny. In about 30% of cases, we refer the draft for further scrutiny by standing committees such as the committees responsible for transport, justice or otherwise. In 70% of cases, we make no such recommendation but simply note the proposal.
This is an assisting process whereby a committee of the Oireachtas considers all draft regulations and draft directives in advance and provides an opportunity for comment on them. In each Department, a co-ordinator has been appointed to ensure that the requirements of the legislation are met. There has been some sluggishness or difficulty in regard to some Departments, though not too much, and there is also a difficulty with the resources of the committee which we need to address. However, under the Act, we are required to report to both the Dáil and Seanad after the end of 2003 on how the scrutiny legislation has worked. We are in the process of reporting to both Houses on how this new system has worked.
Second, as a result of the changes, the Minister for Foreign Affairs now comes before this committee each month before he goes to the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The committee considers the agenda with him and members ask questions and raise issues as they wish and get responses.
This committee is a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad but Irish members of the European Parliament also have the right of attendance and audience. They can participate but not vote, though the committee does not normally vote in any event. While there were some votes when legislation was passing through the committee, even then we did not break down on a party basis. The committee generally does its business by agreement and through consensus, something which has emerged rather than being a requirement of legislation. When the committee meets, MEPs often attend and are free to do so, particularly on Mondays or Fridays and sometimes midweek when they are not in Brussels.
The committee decided to hold four meetings of the committee annually outside Dublin, before which a subject would be decided for discussion. Before those meetings, which were held in the same manner as meetings here, with witnesses being questioned and an audience, a number of schools would attend the committee and we would discuss with them the European Union and how the committee deliberates.
During the Convention process, we met with Government and parliamentary representatives before and after their attendance at plenary sessions. We discussed with them the issues being raised and our views on them. In the final analysis, we drew up what was known as a 'Chairman's draft' with regard to the Convention report, and did it in that way so that the committee and parties represented on the committee were not bound in any way. It was not finalised but was simply a draft which gave some steer to our members on the Convention as to the concerns of members, through the eyes of the Chairman. It was done in that way so that the draft would not be formalised.
The committee also takes initiatives and I will give two examples of that. We receive incoming Commissioners and our own Ministers; we do not confine ourselves to the Minister for Foreign Affairs but have recently met with the Minister for Finance in regard to the Stability and Growth Pact and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in regard to immigration issues.
We decided that the Irish EU Presidency could, with some credibility, try to drive Third World issues up the agenda during our Presidency, issues such as the HIV crisis in the developing world, hunger and trade. Having looked at Sweden's contribution in this area in terms of GNP, I feel it could do the same with even greater credibility. Ireland has a great missionary tradition, as does Sweden, and an NGO tradition.
The committee got the secretary general of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to chair a group for the committee which consisted of the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. David Andrews, the former Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Noel Dorr, and the former adviser to President Mary Robinson, Ms Bride Rosney. We asked them, without reinventing the wheel or trying to change everything overnight, to find what practical matters Ireland could put on the agenda during its Presidency. They came up with a report which we presented to the Government. It has put this issue on the agenda and is trying to push it forward. It was our committee that prompted it to do that, as the Minister with responsibility for European affairs was kind enough to acknowledge last week.
From my experience of our chairmanship of COSAC, which you will know from your participation has the right to make recommendations for the consideration of the institutions of the union, COSAC spends far too much time examining our own regulations. I want to bring an end to that during our time. We asked Professor Patricia Barker, professor of business studies at Dublin City University, to look at an institution that does not often get examined, namely, the Court of Auditors - when we talk about institutions we tend to look at the political institutions - and to make recommendations to stimulate debate on the reform of the Court of Auditors. Professor Barker had a group of people - accountants and economists - working with her. She reported to the committee and we intend to table that report for discussion at the upcoming COSAC meeting in the hope that COSAC might use that power and start moving the issue forward. We have the right of initiative in that regard.
Our power comes from two sources. One is the legislation I mentioned and the other is resolution of both the Dáil and Seanad which gives us fairly wide powers in terms of examining issues generally. It all sounds very good, it works fairly well and we work very hard but nobody knows that because we do not get a great degree of media coverage, but we get some. We have a resource problem and that is something we are trying to address. Do any of my colleagues want to add to that?
I join the Chairm an in welcoming the large delegation from Sweden. One of the upsides of having the Presidency of the European Union is that delegations visit us instead of our having to visit them, which saves on air fares if nothing else. We recently had delegations from the representatives' neighbours, Denmark, and also Bulgaria and Poland. Delegations from virtually every European committee will come here and that gives us a great opportunity to get a cross-section of views.
Like the Chairman, I have also attended some COSAC meetings and if there is to be a new treaty of Europe, there will be a yellow flag procedure whereby European committees of national Parliaments will be able to send back proposals to Brussels if they believe they breach the subsidiarity principle or are outside the terms of the treaty. That is important because I am one of those people who believe the European Union should be a union of independent and sovereign member states. I do not want a super-state Europe for which, unfortunately, some people in the very centre of power in Europe are pushing. From what I have read of the Swedish position, this would not be popular in Sweden either.
Ireland can have much in common with Denmark, Finland and Sweden in taking a balanced view of developments within the European Union. We take our scrutiny committee seriously but there should be much more co-operation in the future among European affairs committees. Perhaps we should exchange information on a much more regular basis because the Swedish European affairs committee may have the same problem with a proposal as ourselves. We may share similar views but we do not know that. COSAC can be the way to address that but there may be some other way of communicating together as European committees vis-à-vis European projects.
The Irish Government is working hard to try to secure agreement among all the countries on the Intergovernmental Conference and a new treaty of Europe. That will be a priority for the Presidency and on 1 May the formal enlargement date celebrations take place here in Ireland. The representatives are welcome to fly back here on 1 May if they wish; I am sure the Chairman would be happy to pay for their tickets personally and put them up. We look forward to that day which will be a great day for Europe.
What the Deputy said is very important. I have always felt that our two countries stand fairly closely on our attitudes to what we want the Union and our national Parliaments to do. That is why it is interesting for us to come here and hear how this committee is working with its issues within the Parliament. We are currently in a major process of discussion on how we can get the rest of the Parliament more involved in the issues concerning the European Union because our committee should not take all the responsibility for issues which then die, after we have been following our Government to the European meetings, but also on the new role we will have with the new legislation the Chairman talked about. We have the same ideas as this committee on what the European Union should and should not do.
I have been very critical of COSAC but the one thing that came through in the past year is that we all agreed that we have to strengthen the national Parliaments. That has to be the base; otherwise, COSAC has nothing in common with our Parliaments. I also believe it is important that we find better ways to say that we are having a major discussion on this in Sweden or here and to communicate earlier on what we can do. That is the problem we found so far. As we became members of the European Union so late, we are always behind and we have been coming in very slowly in the procedure. As members also know, the Swedish people are quite sceptical about the European Union project, and I am sure members followed the referendum we had last September. It is necessary for us to find new ways of having a more clear role of the responsibility for the national Parliament and the European Union. That is what we are trying to do. We have to come closer on a solution to this aspect before we have the election in June. That is why it is interesting to hear about your new fora. We have had open committee meetings with our Prime Minister, and they have been very good so far. We would like to try other meetings also but we have not come that far.
We have a lot to learn from each other and since we have a common base on what we believe the European Union should do, I believe we have taken a first step.
I call Deputy Haughey, who is vice-chairman of the committee.
I, too, welcome the delegation and look forward to a mutually beneficial exchange of views this afternoon. Mrs. Segelstrom asked what were the priorities for the Irish Presidency. Deputy Mulcahy stated some of those, which include making sure the enlargement process takes place efficiently and effectively on 1 May, and also the new constitutional treaty for Europe. There is one other issue which the Irish Presidency hopes to advance, that is, the whole Lisbon Agenda to make the European Union competitive and economically successful. That would be a major priority for the Irish Presidency as well.
On the new constitution and the Intergovernmental Conference, Ireland, as a small nation, has concerns about the constitutional treaty, moves for tax harmonisation, defence issues and justice and home affairs issues. What are the provisions of interest and concern to Mrs. Segelstrom at this time as negotiations take place on the constitutional treaty?
I note that, as is the case here, Sweden has referendums on European issues. The result of the Swedish referendum on joining the European Union in 1994 was a slim majority of 52.3% in favour. Its referendum on joining the single currency was rejected by a margin of 14% in September 2003. Will Mrs. Segelstrom tell us about Sweden's relationship with the European Union in that context? The majority who voted in favour of membership of the Union in Sweden was not as large as the majority who voted for it here. What were the issues of concern to Swedish citizens with regard to joining the single currency?
I will be pleased to do that. We are pleased that Ireland has chosen the Lisbon strategy as one of its priorities. It is likely to be one of the main issues of discussion in the run-up to our general election in June. The issues in that regard are important for the Swedish people. Issues such as securing full employment, environmental issues and having control of one's own budget are important to us. All parties in our Parliament have decided that the Lisbon strategy should be the main issue for discussion in our forthcoming election.
We are also pleased about the progress reached in discussions on the constitutional treaty. We were disappointed we did not reach an agreement in December. A special foreign committee of our Parliament worked on the issues regarding the proposed treaty and we are ready to try to reach agreement on those issues. If Ireland was able to close the discussion on that, it would make matters easier for us in the forthcoming election in that the Swedish people would have something on which to decide.
The result of our referendum in September showed that a majority of Swedes are of the view that we could wait. We are not in a hurry. We do not have to join the monetary union now. Many Swedes are sceptical about this and the position did not improve in that regard following the referendum in September and the discussion that took place at that time on what was happening in Germany and France in terms of their not keeping to the budget set and other issues that reflected negatively on the European Union. We are having a hard time in that respect and we are working hard to form European policy. That is the reason it is important for us to come here and to get good examples from other countries.
As to whether we should hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty, all seven parties in Parliament have decided we should decide on that issue when it comes to Parliament. The other parties could agree on that, but there are different ideas in Parliament on whether we should hold a referendum on the issue. The Social Democratic Party is against the holding of a referendum for several reasons. The Parliament has decided to postpone that discussion until we have something to decide on.
We have the same political issues at the top of our agenda as has Ireland. We were pleased that together with Ireland we were able to find a solution to the neutrality issue prior to Christmas. Public opinion on the issue in Sweden helped us in this regard. It is of great importance to the Swedish people that we decide for ourselves on our neutrality.
You should not smile too widely because Sweden also exports a great deal of armaments and it is well armed to look after itself. As the 1907 convention requires, it defends its neutrality. You should not get me into that argument.
The Chairman will quickly get upset.
Since you raised the issue, I notice there has been a calibrated change in Sweden's position on neutrality. It has become more non-aligned than neutral, but it is a major exporter of armaments and it is a well armed country, which is a requirement for a neutral state under the 1907 Hague Convention. That position is in contrast to the position here.
The main issue for people in Sweden was that they wanted to make certain that it would be a matter for the Swedish Parliament to decide whether Sweden should participate in any such activities outside our country.
That is the Fine Gael position and I concur with that view.
I commend the Irish Presidency on putting the issue of HIV-AIDS on the agenda. It is worthy of every commendation. It is a good idea and I wish the Irish Presidency success in that area. Almost 5,000 people die every day from this disease. Dealing with the issue of HIV is no longer an issue of health but one of justice and discrimination. The idea of Africa being on the agenda is welcome.
The charter of the European Parliament is being discussed with the members of Parliament and it would be interesting to know what type of discussion is taking place. We had a discussion on the matter in our committee as recently as last Friday, on which there was more or less a unanimous decision taken to reject some of the proposals, particularly regarding wages. It would be interesting to know the committee's views on that point.
We did not lose much sleep over it. We had the item on the agenda of a meeting last week when the Minister with responsibility for European Affairs appeared before the committee to discuss that agenda item in advance of a General Affairs Council meeting. The committee has not considered it but it seems reasonable that there should be a fixed salary and that it should be set at a reasonable level, if MEPs are being required to give up what seem to be quite generous expenses. Beyond that, we have not discussed the matter, therefore I do not know what views other members might wish to express on it.
I join others in welcoming the delegation. I am a member of the Irish Labour Party. With due respect to the non-social democratic members of the delegation, Sweden has always held a particular place in the hearts and minds of social democrats throughout Europe. The members of the delegation are welcome on that score.
I wish to comment on one reflection and ask one question. This reflection was provoked by what Deputy Mulcahy said about subsidiarity and so on. Some of the scepticism in Scandinavia, and I assume in Sweden as well as in Denmark and Finland, about integration and common standards arises from Sweden's wish to retain higher standards of environmental and social protection than apply in other member states. This is an interesting reflection and we have come at the issue from another angle whereby our standards have been measurably improved because of common minimum standards imposed across the Union. It is interesting that our experiences on that issue come from different perspectives.
I wish to ask about the euro and, perhaps, be a little provocative. From the neutral observer's point of view, it does not seem to make a huge amount of economic sense for Sweden to remain outside the euro area in so far as its currency tracks the euro and central bank rates in Sweden are more or less the same as eurobank rates. It seems that Sweden is forgoing the right to be party to discussions on issues such as, for example, the Stability and Growth Pact while having to effectively obey the rules. That does not appear to make sense.
I welcome the delegation. I am a new Member of the Dáil and a new member of the European Affairs committee. I learn a great deal just by listening to the views and opinions of people from different European countries and, like Deputy Mulcahy, I look forward to hearing a diverse range of views.
The delegates spoke about the Swedish people being sceptical and partly answered the question posed in that regard. However, what specific concerns are paramount among Swedish people, particularly with regard to the proposed constitutional treaty? According to the briefing we received, Sweden would hope to reduce its expenditure on agriculture and on Structural Funds. What other issues are important?
Mrs. Segelstrom also said it has not yet been decided whether there will be a referendum in Sweden on the constitutional treaty and that she would not discuss it yet because she did not know what might be in that treaty. However, she pointed out that the Social Democrats are opposed to it. What is the rationale for being opposed to having a referendum on a treaty that has not yet been seen?
I recall the reply I received from a member of another delegation from another country when I asked, in an informal exchange, if referenda were held in their country. He said: "No, we do not trust our people." That is an exact quote. I did not comment further. I am not suggesting such a situation applies in this case but I am curious to know the reason for deciding not to have a referendum on the treaty.
According to the briefing, the delegates would be happy to see the Nice provisions remain. At the same time, however, they have some sympathy with France and Germany. Our Taoiseach has stated that the Nice treaty must be changed and the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, at a recent meeting of this committee, described that treaty as an interim arrangement. It is obvious from that what the Irish view of the Nice treaty is and whether it should be changed.
In order to obtain parliamentary representation in Sweden, a political party must secure 4% of the national vote. I am an Independent Member of the Dáil. Of the 166 Members of the Dáil, 11 are independent. I do not belong to a political party. Does Sweden have independent representatives in its Parliament? I suspect there are none from reading the briefing.
This meeting follows a visit to the committee by the Danish delegation. There are probably some similarities between the situations of the two countries.
With regard to the comment made by Mr. Frans and the programme for the Presidency, the Taoiseach has just spoken in the Upper House on the Presidency. He met the Polish Prime Minister this morning and, obviously, the issue of the treaty would be relevant to that. He is going to London this afternoon to talk to the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.
However, in the Upper House he emphasised the situation in Africa. Approximately 28 million people in Africa have AIDS and one of the facts that emerged yesterday, which was a surprise to some people, is that some young children in Africa who have HIV/AIDS did not get it from their parents. It appears that, due to poverty, syringes have to be used repeatedly for children's inoculations and there was some degree of transfer as a result.
The Taoiseach also made the point that this country, in holding the Presidency, is probably in a good position to influence the situation in Africa because of our close historical links by virtue of our religious tradition. Our missionaries would have made a significant input into education, medicine and so forth in Africa. It is a priority and that is explicitly stated in the small booklet produced on the Presidency and its priorities, which the delegation would find useful.
My question is related to one of the questions asked by Deputy Harkin. I am a member of the Progressive Democrats, which is the minority party in Government. With regard to the adoption of the constitutional treaty, it was explained to us that Denmark, by virtue of adopting an earlier treaty, did not need to go back to the electorate to ask the question again. Does the same apply in Sweden? Ireland is mandated by its Constitution to have a referendum. We do not have a choice.
The other point is the live political issue of the two speed Europe. When Mr. Prodi visited Ireland, it was a matter of some contention. One could argue that the single currency is an example of a two speed Europe, in the sense that some countries are in the system and others are not. However, that decision was made by unanimity. It was agreed that some countries could remain outside. The fear is that a two speed Europe could develop without that type of consensus with regard to which countries might opt in or out. What are the delegates' views on that?
With regard to the Convention, the reservation related to the dominance of the larger countries, particularly Germany and France, and Sweden would share our concerns in that respect. When the Taoiseach expressed his preference for proceeding beyond Nice, it was not to the extent of saying that the Nice treaty had to be scrapped but that there was a compromise which might be achieved somewhere in between. That was the view of the Presidency and not necessarily a national view.
The members asked about our main priority with regard to the constitution. The main priority is that the constitution will be ready and negotiated, as is happening now. We wish the Presidency luck with that task.
With regard to public opinion in Sweden, that is a problem and we have to handle it. The vast majority in the Swedish Parliament supports the euro, for example, but the committee is aware of the result of the referendum. It is our task to see if this opinion can shift by 2006 or 2007.
With regard to public opinion on the Union, I have a question for the committee. Ireland has received large sums from the Union since it became a member. From 2006 or 2007, Ireland will have to gradually pay into the Union. It would be interesting to hear from the committee how it believes this shift will influence public opinion in Ireland about the Union. There is also the question of how it will influence the Irish Government's role within the Union regarding financing. Agriculture was already mentioned.
If that happens, this committee will have to resign en masse.
I thank you, Chairman, for receiving us today. It is interesting to meet people from other Union member states.
I have a comment on the discussion about the constitution. It is important that it is sustainable and workable even if there are 27, 30 or 35 nations in the Union. I hope steps will be taken in the right direction during Ireland's Presidency so that we can have an agreement before the elections to the European Parliament or as soon as possible.
As regards Ireland's work on environmental issues, it is listed in the agenda for the Presidency. Ireland has suggested that it will work to ensure that these issues are given a better focus than heretofore.
I am on the standing committee on labour market affairs and I am interested in equal opportunities for men and women, particularly in terms of the representation of women in the EU Parliament. Women represent only approximately 30% of those in the European Parliament. That might be acceptable for the new member states. What is the committee's opinion on that? It is also a democratic question because human rights cover both men and women. If women are not equally represented, there is a lack of democracy, which is a problem.
I attended a conference in Rome last November of European parliamentarians and representatives of national Parliaments at which such issues were discussed. We said it was important that more women were elected to the European Parliament. Are Ireland's political parties working on such issues for the elections in June? What is the situation in Ireland?
Perhaps Deputy Harkin might like to deal with that. I am not sure if she needs to make a declaration.
I will give the Chairman advance warning. I will attempt to answer Mrs. Andersson's question which is at the heart of the matter as far as Ireland and the EU are concerned. I remember during the vote on the Maastricht Treaty our then Taoiseach said there were 8 billion reasons to vote "Yes". He was talking about money. In the recent past most Irish people associated Europe with Structural funding, which was to our advantage.
We have started to rethink the importance of a united Europe and the role we can play in that. If we have a referendum on a constitutional treaty, many of these issues will be debated. We have already started to debate them. They are only beginning to permeate the consciousness of many people.
We are on the periphery of Europe. We were not involved in the First World War or the Second World War, unlike many other countries. We do not share the same historical context as countries in central Europe. Europe was sold to us as a mechanism for improving our economic situation and it helped. We must look to the future and at the broader picture. We will become contributors and we must do for others what the EU managed to do for us. That will not be easy to sell, but it will be a major challenge.
The transfers are overrated and overstated. The reason is that politicians oversold them. Ministers of all hues and parties came back from Europe having won something and it always seemed to be good news. It got to the stage where if there was no money in the Exchequer, people asked if we could get it in Brussels. However, 3% of GDP - Senator McDowell might know the exact figure - was the maximum we received.
As a country on the periphery of Europe, our infrastructure is still greatly underdeveloped, but it has made great advances. Our per capita income has exceeded that of Sweden, but our bank of wealth is still far behind. We still have a lot of work to do on our infrastructure. As the Union moves east, we will become more peripheral. We are the only country in the EU which does not have a land connection with Europe. The British have a rail line. We are concerned about transport costs and getting our products to the markets. The Single European Act had a bigger effect on us than any transfers we received from Europe.
For the first 15 years of our membership of the European Union we had serious problems with our public finances. Although those problems were identified as early as 1979, it took us almost ten more years to grapple with them. Controlling public finances, meeting the criteria for Economic and Monetary Union and then for the euro and social partnership have contributed more to our recovery than transfers from Europe. However, we allowed that perception to be given.
There is a realisation among business people and leading trade unionists and farming organisations that it is good to be part of this enterprise. It might be difficult to get this message across to the public, as Deputy Harkin said. The reason the European Union was set up was to ensure that what happened during the First World War and the Second World War when 60 million lives were lost could not happen again. That is the forerunner to the prosperity, peace and stability of an integrated rather than an assimilated Europe. They are important issues at a political level.
We thought once we joined the European Union and had a referendum in 1973 that there was no need to have a referendum again. However, under the Single European Act the High Court ruled that we would have to have a referendum if a significant change was involved. Because we got used to people saying "Yes" to the Single European Act, the Treaty of Maastricht and the Treaty of Amsterdam, the politicians who favoured the Treaty of Nice did not bother trying to sell it. We thought people would vote "Yes", but they did not. Only 35% of the people voted and it was defeated by 18% to 17%. We then had to find a way to put the question a second time. That made us realise that there is a need to communicate with people about how to address their concerns on Europe. That is one of the reasons this committee was given new powers.
I am a farmer and farming has gained significantly from membership of the European Union. Everyone knows that the system is changing but provided the transfers still arrive and are not cut off, it is not as large an issue as it might appear. When we become net contributors to the Union, if it is not reflected in the individual's take home packet, as it will not be, it is not as big an issue as it might appear. We are aware that we have made significant gains.
With regard to gender balance and the Parliament, over 50% of the representatives of the Progressive Democrats' parliamentary party are women. It was 50% at one stage. My party is quite small and we had 50% representation in the Seanad at one point because there were only two of us, one male and one female. Even in a party with a large female presence, I do not believe there is any general desire for gender quotas, in other words that it should be required that a certain number of representatives be women. One of the reasons is that we do not have a list system. Perhaps if we had a such a system there might then be some demand to have the list reflect a gender balance. There would be minority view to the contrary, but the majority view is that gender quotas are not desirable.
There are some people who are of the opinion that we should have gender balance for the Presidency of Ireland because we have had women Presidents for such a long period.
My party leader is a woman and she is Deputy Prime Minister.
I want to answer some of the questions that have been posed. We do not have a tradition of referendums in Sweden. That is because they are only advisory. When we had the referendum on the euro, the seven parties decided that it was going to be more than advisory. The Parliament, therefore, decided that it was a special issue. That is why we have the same situation today because it is not in the Swedish tradition. We do not have to hold referendums. We are in exactly the same position as Denmark.
On the issue of the election of individual people to Parliament, we have a 4% limit for parties. It is half of that again to obtain access to the communities. This has still not stopped new parties from gaining election to Parliament or others from being voted out. At present, there are seven parties and it has not yet proved a limit on parties gaining entry to Parliament. That is the system we have in place.
One of the reasons Swedes could be sceptical is that ours is different from the Irish situation. Ten years ago when Ireland was in a good economic position, Sweden was in the midst of a major crisis. We had to cut down on our costs, welfare and the public sector in the middle of the 1990s. We also had a high level of unemployment. We slowly reached the position where we have solved our problems. That is one of the reasons many Swedes are thinking that we have just solved our own economic problems and that we should wait because we are doing quite well now and we do not need to be in such a hurry. One of the main issues for the Swedish people is that we strongly support the ten new member states. That has never been a topic for discussion. It is important for us to be able to take matters slowly. It is important that we have the public's support for what we are doing.
The future role of the Parliaments is a major issue. Many Swedes feel that it is impossible to be clear about what the European Union should do and what we should continue to do in our national Parliament.
After our referendum, opinions were researched and it emerged that a majority of Swedes felt it was right for our country to be a member of the European Union but that there was no need to rush to enter monetary union. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. We are not helped by discussions on constitutional issues. We need to discuss politics and what is important for the Swedish people. The issues in this regard relate to jobs, representation among women, the environment, drug problems, terrorism and peace. That is what we are trying to do, to get public opinion to support the membership.
I belong to the smallest party in the Swedish Parliament, the Green Party, and I am happy to be here on the green island. The Green Party in Sweden is very sceptical about the Union. However, there are different types of groups in my party, some of which are more or less sceptical. At present, we are discussing the matter. I am somewhat in the middle because I accept that Sweden is a member of the Union. We want to make some changes but I do not have time to explain the Green Party's demands in that regard. However, we want to have a referendum on the constitution and we are working towards it. Since we have only 4% or 5%, we are not in a position to get what we want and must continue to work. I am the sceptic in the group and Members are welcome to ask me about the people's opinion.
I welcome our guests. It is interesting to meet the different groups from various countries because their agendas and needs, particularly those from eastern Europe, are so different. It is interesting that the issue of gender balance was raised today because we have just lost our voting rights at the Council of Europe because ours is an all-male delegation. We will have to ensure that a female Member from one of the largest parties attends as part of our delegation in future and there is only one available. If the Member in question does not want to attend, we do not know what will happen.
I concur with Senator Dardis that it is better to let gender equality evolve rather than set limits on it. We have had difficulty in encouraging women to enter politics. I do not know what is the position in Sweden, but most politicians work every night. I live in a constituency in which there are 43 residents' associations which meet every month. Every night there is a function or two or three meetings and one must also work on Saturday and Sunday. One, therefore, does not have much of a home life and women do not seem to like this. It is not that we do not encourage them; they sometimes do not encourage themselves. I am sure gender balance will evolve as time passes. It is not a bias. We need women to push themselves forward.
Europe gives rise to questions about economics and power. This is an important matter. There is a saying in Sweden that it is far to Stockholm. However, it is even further to Brussels. Some people think there is a democratic deficit in the European Union, that it is difficult to influence decisions coming from the EU, and that the EU is growing so much that we are losing power in our own country, because the EU overrules it. I hope one of the benefits of a European constitution will be that the EU will be a bit more democratic and more easily understood. Citizens should feel that they can hold a person or body accountable for certain decisions. The constitution would provide more structure for European co-operation.
When it came to economics, the Swedish discussion was about how to mitigate the effects of recession. I was on the "Yes" side, so I may be somewhat subjective but I have tried to talk about growth, while others like to talk about how a recession can be mitigated if our economic power and monetary policies are given to an EU body.
It is also important to discuss the campaign. I felt that the "Yes" side started a bit too late and adopted a defensive position. The "No" side was quite strong from the very start. In addition, I got the feeling that ordinary people found that to vote "Yes" was to vote with the elite. Most of the politicians in Parliament, including the Government side, were in favour of the euro. The confederation of Swedish industry put a lot of money into the campaign. When I was campaigning, people asked me if I was doing this voluntarily or if I was being paid for it. Since I am a young person, they often confused me with other young people who had been hired by the confederation. They took it as a summer job to go out and tell people to vote "Yes" but many people became very suspicious of this.
Thank you, Chairman, for this interesting question time. I also have a question about gender equality. In your Constitution, it states that you cannot support child day-care or nursery schools, which makes it very expensive for parents who cannot afford it. As a result, the woman may have to stay at home for the whole day, or work a few hours a day. It would be easier to get women interested in politics if they had access to nursery school facilities. Ireland will have elections in June and I hope there will be more women in politics as a result. Perhaps if women are in Parliament, they will vote for changing the rules in the constitution. There will be changes.
I also want to address this question of equal voting opportunities. In Sweden we have had a long debate, for over 30 years, on how to attract more women into politics. Senator Lydon has been telling us how politics works in Ireland, but it is not only women who have to change; maybe the organisation of politics also has to change. In Sweden, it has changed a little but not enough.
It is not very easy for parents to work in politics. It is also a problem for people going to work in Brussels because they are far away from home. We have to discuss these questions because they concern the democratic process. If some people do not feel they have an opportunity to be represented in their national Parliament or the European Parliament, they will not bother to vote and we will lose credibility.
I fully agree that it is no use having quotas for gender equality, and we have not had them in Sweden. Some political parties have a 50% quota for women candidates. There have been discussions about how important it is to have both men and women, young and old, parents with young children and those from different work backgrounds, taking part in politics, which must mirror all kinds of people in society. That is very important and this discussion must continue in Europe. There was a great discussion on quotas at the conference I attended and people were seeking European legislation concerning it, but I could not accept it. It is not good to have such legislation because one cannot press people to do something. The discussion will continue, however, and I hope that we can have a better democracy in the European Parliament as well as, hopefully, even here in the Irish Parliament, if we think that 50% gender quotas are a good way of solving the problem. I do not, however.
There are those who maintain that the Stability Pact is more or less dead. Ireland is one of the few countries that has been cited for not maintaining the pact and that has made proposals for changes to it. That was in contrast to what happened just before Christmas, when France and Germany were not punished for not maintaining the pact. I am sure there is a discussion going on here about that. What is the general view? Is the Stability Pact dead or are there any discussions within the EU Presidency to try to change some of the rules and make it work? If so, what are they?
We had the Minister for Finance here a few weeks ago to speak on this issue. To be perfectly frank, he gave a good account of himself. His view was that the Council of Ministers did the right thing and that it was politically necessary. He also took the view that it was legal. Furthermore, he said he had no objection to the Commission testing the legality of what was decided. However, if I can summarise correctly what he said, he also felt there was room for reform of the Stability Pact rules, particularly in the case of countries with a low debt-to-GNP ratio because the annual cycle requires more than a 3% deficit. The issue has certainly not gone away. The Commission has announced it is taking action in the courts, which is a serious issue in itself. Hopefully, some agreed reform of the rules will come about that will not undermine the currency. It is certainly an issue that is very much alive.
On the equality issue, we have a Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We also have an Equality Authority. Much of the equality legislation came about because of our membership of the European Union. Some years ago, the Minister for Finance somewhat controversially introduced what was called individualisation in the tax code. Until then it was a tax code for married or single people. It was individualised to encourage greater participation in the workforce by women, many of whom traditionally chose to stay at home. More women are now at work. More workplaces are providing child care services as are more communities, often with a financial contribution from the State. There is an awareness of needs in that area. At the end of the day, people have to choose. Our economic growth rate was made possible by the availability of our educated young people and the availability of women who had not heretofore been in employment to come into the workforce. There have been dramatic changes in this area. The point made by Mrs. Andersson that this discussion must be ongoing is the right approach.
I would like to respond briefly to the issue of equality and participation by women in politics. I am not quite sure what was meant by the reference to child care in the Constitution. The participation of women in the workforce has increased quite dramatically in the past ten to 15 years.
I always remember what the former President, Mary Robinson, had to say on the issue of women in politics. She talked about the four Cs in terms of stumbling blocks to women's participation in politics; cash, confidence, culture and child care. On cash, it is quite expensive to get involved in politics and to fund an election campaign. That is an issue for many women. On confidence, one must have the belief that one can do it because the culture does not always encourage women to get involved in politics. Approximately 15% of current Members of the Oireachtas are women. The Chairman appears to be amused by something I said.
No, I was thinking about something else.
That indicates that our political culture probably does not encourage women to get involved. I cannot comment on political parties because I have never been a member of one. I do not know what happens within political parties but I do know that a number of women in political parties come from political families. It is, perhaps, a little easier for them to be selected within their own parties. However, I cannot comment on that because I do not know the position. Perhaps other members might know the position in that regard.
On child care, that issue does not arise only for women in politics. It is an issue for all parents. Child care is not a women's issue. It is a family issue. We need to broaden that discussion in this country. When it is recognised as an issue for families then, perhaps, it will move further up the agenda. I do not know the position in Sweden but politics in Ireland is a seven days a week job. I will not say it is 24-7 job, even though some politicians say it is, because it is not so for me. The hours are long and one is expected to be available. Therefore, its is difficult for politicians, male and female, to maintain family relationships. Is the same true in Sweden?
If one were to read what is published in our media, in recent months in particular, one would imagine Irish politicians spend most of their time on holidays and that they do very little constructive work. I utterly refute that as a new Member of this House and as an Independent.
People believe we spend too much time attending to our constituents' needs and not enough to national needs. This week alone, I received two questionnaires which almost suggested spending time in one's constituency was, somehow, wrong. Most politicians put in a long week in the Oireachtas and in the party structure, which receives no credit at all although it is necessary. There is a tendency to believe that what we do in our constituencies is self-serving.
I will soon undertake three hours of self-serving in some difficult areas in the city. Meeting with a Member of Parliament is, for many people in the inner city, an important thing. It is important we have such meetings to make people aware of what is going on. Deputy Mulcahy represents the same constituency as I do. There is competition in this area because we have multi-seat constituencies. People are saying we need more competition but they want less competition in politics. Yet the people gain from a certain amount of competition.
Our system may cause us to over-do things. I give a great deal of time to this committee, the Dáil and my constituency. The most common thing said to me is, "We only see you at election time." That is not true. There is a constant harking back to our role as Members of Parliament and our constituency roles. We have a dual direct mandate from the people and are accountable to the people as well as to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I would like to return to what was said at the beginning. We share the problems in terms of public opinion of politicians. We could do a great deal by holding public discussions on the role of politicians. It is a big issue throughout Europe.
It is necessary that small countries discuss their new role in Europe in terms of legislation and controlling what the European Union should do. We have a chance to initiate change in the European Union. That is something we have in common with Ireland. We must begin that discussion at an early stage. It will be a way to get public support for what we do in the national Parliament. We cannot allow anyone else to decide the matter for us. It is important that we, Ireland and Sweden, begin the discussion because we are small countries. We must begin this process early so that it will become part of national Parliament.
Has that matter been put on the agenda for the Dublin COSAC meeting?
Yes.
A whole new system of co-operation between——
Issues such as scrutiny and best practice are on the agenda.
The committee has a couple of items it must discuss under any other business. I thank the delegation for attending. We have had an interesting exchange. I hope the delegation found it interesting and fruitful. We are delighted you took the opportunity to come here and to engage in the exchange. We look forward to seeing the Chairman in Ireland for the meeting of Chairpersons of the national committees for the COSAC meeting in February and the full delegation for the meeting in May, the first time all 25 Parliaments will meet in full session as equal members. We look forward to seeing you again. Thank you.
I thank the committee for taking time to meet with us. This is the start of what we can accomplish together in changing the European Union.
The joint committee went into private session and adjourned at 3.37 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 February 2004.
