I welcome Ms Marian Harkin to the Seanad. It is her first time here. She was a Member of the Dáil for a number of years. She is my MEP in the North West constituency. We wish her well in her position and success in the future. I ask her to address the House.
Address to Seanad Éireann by Ms Marian Harkin, MEP
Ms Marian Harkin
I thank the House for the kind invitation to speak here this morning. It really is an honour and one I appreciate. Many of my colleagues have been here this week and other weeks. The first thing I noticed when I entered the House was that it is really up close and personal; one gets to eyeball people here. It is obviously a good Chamber for debating. There is no such thing as avoiding anybody's eyes here; if one says something, one must mean it. I really appreciate this honour. It is more than just an opportunity to have a nice polite conversation and exchange views. We have an opportunity to make a connection and to deliver better outcomes for EU citizens, including Irish citizens. I will return to this. I am not talking about an exchange of views alone; in EU parlance, I am speaking about enhanced co-operation that will result in real and meaningful engagement between this House and the EU institutions. This is very important. It is largely, but not entirely, a neglected area. This House could play a significantly enhanced and vital role. I will return to this because it is the core message I want to deliver today, particularly in the context of plans to abolish the Seanad. From the very start, I have opposed the plan to abolish it. I will do so consistently, for a number of reasons.
Let me give a very brief outline of my work. I will mention a number of headline issues. If Senators are interested, they may ask questions. I will also speak briefly about the current issues that are important to Ireland in the negotiations. Having had the privilege to serve in Dáil Éireann as an Independent Member, I am in a position to outline the differences between how we operate at European and national levels. Sometimes, when I am asked the difference between the European Parliament and Irish Parliament, I answer in just one sentence: of all the money that is spent at EU level, just one cent in every euro is spent by the European institutions. Some 99 cent out of every euro, or 99% of all money spent, is spent by the member states. This implies that issues that affect people daily, including the disability allowance, the old age pension, the location of a road or hospital, and judges' or teachers' pay, are dealt with at national level. At EU level, our role is mainly concerned with legislation. Many Irish people think of money when they think of Europe. They think of funding but, in truth, only 1% of all money spent is spent at EU level. Increasingly, EU legislation is having an impact on people's lives. It is much more significant than many people realise.
At EU level, the system is quite different. We do not have a government and an opposition. No single group has overall control, and therefore we must negotiate. We must work with one another to reach compromises in order to achieve agreement and to pass legislation. This is good in many ways because it allows individual MEPs, especially members of the larger groups, to influence what goes on and to make a difference.
Senators will have heard of the groups in the Parliament. The largest is the European People’s Party, of which Fine Gael is a member. There are also the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, of which the Labour Party is a member, and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the third largest group. My Fianna Fáil colleagues and I are members of that. There are also the Greens–European Free Alliance and the European United Left–Nordic Green Left. Sinn Féin and Paul Murphy are members of the latter. Individual MEPs can influence outcomes in a way that I did not find possible in Dáil Éireann. That is one of the significant differences.
One of the main positive aspects of our ratification of the Lisbon treaty, and my main reason for asking people to vote "Yes" to it, is that we now have co-decision-making powers in the Parliament. Members are democratically elected and accountable. We are very busy at present in the area of co-decision-making under the Irish Presidency in that we are trying to reach agreement on some of the big-ticket items, including the Common Agricultural Policy, social and regional policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. As an Independent, I contend the Irish Presidency is proceeding very well. There is a considerable amount of work for politicians and civil servants in trying to obtain agreement on many of the really difficult issues. Ireland has and always has had a good reputation for being hard-working, pragmatic and willing to seek agreement on various issues.
This may not seem very important to Irish people, because there is sometimes a sense that what is occurring in Europe does not have a huge impact on our lives. It does, however, and I will return to this point time and again. At present, people are trying to get through one day at a time, but if we do not reach agreement on the CAP or CFP proposals, for example, it will have a great impact on very many people. The same applies to the social fund. We have just concluded negotiations on the electromagnetic fields directive. I was the shadow for my group. Had we not achieved agreement on the matter, MRI scans could no longer have continued in all our hospitals from October of this year. That matters to people's lives. Under the Irish Presidency, we have just managed to achieve agreement on this. It comes under the area of workers' health and safety.
As an MEP who is not in a party, I acknowledge there is a lot of hard work taking place. I am not saying this to give people a pat on the back or because there are people from different parties in this Chamber today. There is a major effort being made. We expect it from our politicians but our civil servants give 100%. The work matters and actually does have an impact on people's lives in a way they could not even imagine.
A point of which people might not be aware and which my colleagues might not have made to date is that Irish MEPs often co-operate. It is not exactly a case of donning the green jersey, as the famous phrase goes, although it can happen at times. It is a much wider arrangement. My colleague Mr. Pat the Cope Gallagher was here last week. He is an expert on fisheries. If I need to know something about the finer detail associated with fisheries, I ask Pat. Equally, if he needs to know something on employment, he will approach a colleague. Former MEP Alan Kelly, now a Minister of State, was an expert on IT. If I needed to know anything about that or legislation thereon, I could always telephone him. Mr. Gay Mitchell is an expert on development. I could keep going down the line. It is important that people know we work together. When an issue arises that affects Ireland Inc., be it the regional aid guidelines or the common consolidated corporate tax base, we work together as a team of MEPs. Perhaps this is not fully recognised.
Where my work is concerned, I will just give a few headlines. If Senators are interested, I will answer any questions they might have.
My main committee deals with employment and social affairs and I am a substitute on the agriculture committee and the petitions committee. I am rapporteur in the employment and social affairs committee, which means I lead for the Parliament on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Some Members will be familiar with that. The workers in Dell, SR Technics, Waterford Crystal and the construction workers all managed to get some assistance from that fund.
I am also shadowing for my group, which means I lead for my group in a number of areas. I will mention them and if Members wish to ask questions, that is fine. One is food aid for the deprived. In fact, one of our colleagues, Emer Costello, is the rapporteur and is leading for the Parliament on that. I will make a small point which I believe is indicative of wider and bigger things and, in a way, even reflects some of what our President was speaking about both in the Parliament and in today's newspapers. In the food aid for the deprived, which I need not explain as Members know what it means, and the globalisation fund, which helps workers who have been made redundant to get retrained, set up their own business and so forth, there is a blocking minority in the Council. That blocking minority is Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the UK and one or two other countries. That is a significant point. They are what I might call the "hawks" in the fiscal debate. When it comes to issues such as food aid for the deprived or the globalisation fund to help redundant workers, it says a great deal that those countries, or some of them, are part of the blocking minority. If any Member wishes to raise that issue, we can return to it later.
I shadow for my group on the programme for social change and innovation. One area there that will be of interest to Members is microfinance. I am also shadowing for my committee on the proposal from Viviane Reding that there be a 40% presence of the under-represented sex, women, among the non-executive directors on boards for listed companies. I am shadowing opinions on a report on the impact of care for vulnerable people during the crisis, on a report on pensions rights and on the European semester. Finally, I am shadowing a report on medical devices, which I will mention presently because it is of crucial importance to Ireland. That is in the area of employment.
With regard to agriculture, I will not go into any detail other than to say that some Members will have a specific interest in the different facets of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, whether it is convergence, greening, milk quotas, coupling or whatever. Again, if they wish to discuss it or if they have any questions on it, I will be happy to deal with them. I will make one point under the heading of rural development relating to the Leader programme. In my view there is an absolute necessity to ensure that the community-led local development, CLLD, model remains in place. Ireland has had it for the last 20 years and it has been judged by the Commission and the Court of Auditors to be the best model. I will be happy to discuss that with Members also. As an aside, but also related to agriculture, yesterday there was a decision by the European Commission to ban the use of neonicotinoids for two years. It is a type of pesticide that can damage bees. It does not kill bees directly but they cannot make their way back to their hives. Of course, if there are no bees there will be no pollination, and that would be a problem for European agriculture and, indeed, for all of us.
I am also a member of the petitions committee. Ordinary individuals or groups of individuals can petition the committee in cases where a European legislative measure either has not been properly implemented or it has not been implemented at all. The petition must concern European legislation. There are a number of Irish petitions with the committee at present concerning fluoridation of water, health food claims, West=On=Track, Cappagh Farmers Support Group on Aughinish Alumina, and some from a group of people in Bray regarding building on flood plains and the environmental impact assessment directive.
Before discussing the role of the Seanad, I will mention other important legislative measures that will have an impact on Ireland. The medical devices directive is hugely important both for patients and the Irish medical devices industry. There is also the professional qualifications directive and the audit directive. I will not go into further detail on them.
The core message I wish to give today is that I believe the Seanad can play a far more meaningful role and a crucial role in the area of European legislation. I realise there is a European affairs committee; I was a member of it for five years. However, the remit is broader than that and Senators should be fully involved at national level in all stages of European legislation, from scrutiny, which Members are aware of, through to transposition and implementation. That demands very significant resources, both in terms of time and expertise. Members of the European affairs committee are all Deputies. They are busy with their legislative work and constituency work. I genuinely believe the time and resources that are required to deal with all aspects of European legislation go beyond the time and resources available to that committee. I believe another body is required and the Seanad can be that body. One of its core functions could be overseeing all aspects of European legislation.
I do not support abolition of the Seanad. I support restructuring and a change in how the Seanad is elected, but that is an issue for another day. I wish to tease out the potential it has in the area of European legislation. Estimates vary but between 50% and 70% of all the legislation on the Statute Book comes from Europe. That percentage is increasing. When I say that, it sounds as if somebody simply sends an envelope to this country. It is important to point out that the process at European level involves the European Parliament, which is elected, the Council of Ministers, who are also elected, and the European Commission. Nevertheless, a huge amount of our legislation originates in the EU.
In the initial stages, long before legislation is written, there is a real opportunity for different bodies to influence the Commission, and the Seanad could have that role. There is a process in that regard and we do not make sufficient use of it. When the documents are written, they are scrutinised. Every national parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise the legislation. I see an increasing number of reasoned opinions coming from different member states and governments. One of them that does really excellent work is the House of Lords in England. The House of Lords has dedicated committees for the various areas, and one can see their effect. The scrutiny is related to what is called proportionality and subsidiarity. I believe there is a real opportunity in this area, but one cannot do it on a wing and a prayer. One needs time, resources and expertise.
The scrutiny is only part of the story. The legislation then goes to the European Parliament and the Council where it is amended and goes through the process. If there is agreement, and on most occasions there is, we have legislation for different member states. There are different forms of legislation, such as regulation, directive and so forth. The vast majority of European legislation is in the form of a directive. There is flexibility within the directive. A directive is supposed to achieve certain objectives, but there is flexibility for member states as to how they go about achieving those objectives. One cannot have a one-size-fits-all measure for all 27 member states. This is where I believe the Seanad can play a significant role too. Many legislative measures are debated in this House, but many also go through by statutory instrument. The main reason for the flexibility in a directive is to allow member states to adapt the legislation to their specific circumstances.
I do not believe we make the most of our opportunities here. I can think of many examples in which, if this House had been in collaboration with the civil servants, etc., who were drawing up the statutory instruments and if it had been more hands-on, we would have had fewer problems. I will throw out some examples and Senators can comment on them later. I believe the habitats directive was badly handled. If we had a body dedicated to the transposition of that legislation it would have been better, because it could not have been worse. Let us consider the wastewater directive. We saw what happened with the septic tank issue. Would we have had that debacle, for example, if this House had been involved with Cavan County Council, which managed to get it right? Let us consider all the money we have spent - I have tabled a question to the Minister on the matter but I am still waiting for an answer - in all the years defending all the cases in the European Court of Justice. I am not referring to fines and so on but solely to the amount of money we have spent. Let us consider the nitrates directive. That caused terrible trouble for two years. I wonder whether that would have happened if this House had been involved in the transposition. I offer one final example, something one would never have thought of, which I came across recently. It is as boring as the co-ordination of member states in the case of self-employed commercial agents. I will not go into the detail but I came across some people who had been agents and who were literally dropped overnight. When we went through the legislation to see what protection was in place to help them we found that article 17 of the legislation in question stated that commercial agents were entitled to either indemnity or compensation for damage. In other words, the member state made the choice. If we had made the decision that these people could have the choice of being indemnified it would have made all the difference to those who lost their businesses unfairly and unjustly overnight. This occurred some years ago but whatever the decision taken at the time, it was decided that we would not take that route and we would only look at compensation for damage, which was of far less benefit to those involved. If the matter had been debated in this House and all of the aspects had been considered we might have made a different decision in that case. There are many such examples.
That is the issue of transposition, but there is also the matter of implementation of the legislation. If we had a dedicated body to oversee the implementation of legislation we could get rid of many of the problems we experience. One thing we sometimes do in this country is over-implement and gold-plate. I wonder whether we would have a more pragmatic response if we had a body examining these issues.
In this context and in the wider context of Irish legislation, I believe the Seanad should manage a petitions committee. I have referred to the petitions committee in the European Parliament. Something similar could be of benefit, or perhaps a citizens' initiative that would allow people to initiate legislation. Why not have both a petitions committee and a citizens' initiative? Often I hear about the democratic deficit and the gap between citizens and the European Union, and that is true despite the best efforts of MEPs, the Commission, the European Parliament and so on. However, if a core function of this House was to oversee European legislation in all its phases then I believe citizens would have another link to the European Union, on a statutory footing, which could be resourced and have expertise available at the service of citizens.
We all know the drill: if there is good news the Minister, whoever he or she is, claims it - we all tend do this as politicians - but if it is bad news then Europe is to blame. The gap that exists between Irish citizens and the European Union is widening and people are becoming more alienated. The issue is bigger than the Seanad. It is about enhancing representative and participative democracy. I have referred to the petitions committee and the citizens' initiative already in this regard. There is a black hole and a huge gap between citizens and the European Union and I believe a restructured Seanad could help to re-establish those connections and ensure fairer and better outcomes for ordinary people. That would give added legitimacy to this House and to its functioning.
Thank you very much, Ms Harkin. It was great to listen to you. We have more freedom compared to the one minute speakers get in the European Parliament.
Cuirim fíor fáilte roimh Marian Harkin go Seanad Éireann inniu agus thaitin an méid a bhí le rá aici go mór liom. I welcome Ms Harkin wholeheartedly to the Seanad. She was music to the ears with many of the things she had to say on how the Seanad could enhance European co-operation with Ireland.
I refer to the committees Ms Harkin sits on. I do not believe she chose them other than from the heart. From observing her over the years I have admired much of what she has been doing and saying and it has come from her heart. She is on the committee dealing with employment and social affairs. That area is most important for Ireland. I understand she is a substitute on the agriculture panel as well. Both of these portfolios are top priorities in this country. They always were but they are more so now.
Ms Harkin has a busy schedule. I am standing up here beside her and looking into her eyes as a woman. She made reference to another portfolio, the objective of which is ensuring 40% representation by women on committees, in parliament and on boards. Many of the women in the Seanad, including myself, have taken up this issue also.
I asked the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, whether he choose the debate heading. Strengthening the links between the Seanad and the European Union has been a priority for our Leader since I came to the Seanad, as has the question of what we could do to enhance European co-operation. I will say more about enhanced co-operation, the scrutiny of EU legislation, how we could go about it and what I hope we will do about it. We have tried but we have not given up. That is the position. The Leader has been trying in this regard and he has not given up on it.
We all know the Seanad could have a more important role to play in the transposition, interpretation and especially the scrutiny of EU legislation, and Ms Harkin referred to these questions. As a House of the Oireachtas, under the provisions of Article 29 of the Constitution, as recently amended, the Seanad must give prior approval to EU proposals for enhanced co-operation, the Schengen acquis and the opt-out by Ireland in respect of EU measures on freedom, security and justice, including the ending of that opt-out. Likewise, the Seanad must agree with regard to the bypass decision to end the requirement for unanimity on corporation tax and submit to qualified majority voting in respect of other matters which could fundamentally vary or over-ride other constitutional provisions that require the separate, prior approval of Seanad Éireann. We have the power and we should consider it. These provisions are of fundamental importance to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Seanad Éireann is given a veto, if we choose to use it, over the majority wishes of Dáil Éireann in respect of impeaching the President, removing judges and taking part in EU decisions which could have a dramatic and far-reaching effect on Irish sovereignty and on the application of other provisions of the Constitution by virtue of our direct membership of the European Union. However, until there is a change in the whip system, even of limited scope, we are working with our hands tied behind our back in this area.
Ireland's ratification of the Lisbon treaty meant that each House of Oireachtas was conferred with significant additional powers in matters concerning European affairs. These additional powers derive from Article 29.4.8° of the Constitution and from the European Union Act 2009. They are reflected in our Standing Orders, especially Standing Orders 99 to 103. However, how often have we looked at or used them? How often can we consider putting them into force? One effect of these measures is that the Seanad may act independently of the Dáil to oppose efforts by the European Council to act by qualified majority voting instead of unanimity. Similarly, the Seanad may also oppose the Council's efforts to adopt legislative Acts by ordinary legislative procedure instead of the special legislative procedure.
The Seanad is also empowered to issue a reasoned opinion on whether European Union legislative proposals comply with the principle of subsidiarity, which Ms Harkin mentioned.
In the event that the Seanad then concludes that an Act of the European Union institution infringes the principle of subsidarity, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade is obliged to seek a review of the Act concerned in the European Court of Justice. It is a power we could use; it has not been used since the Lisbon treaty. The year 2010 was the first year of the implementation of the Lisbon treaty. This power is relatively new but one we should take seriously.
In late 2009 the role of national parliaments was strengthened considerably. Ms Harkin mentioned the current success of the Irish presidency. I compliment the Irish Government, Civil Service and all who are working on it for the constructive and excellent co-operation that is taking place. I emphasise the importance of the Seanad in that area. One aspect of the Lisbon treaty which is rarely discussed is the enhanced function, to which I have referred.
Ms Harkin mentioned that 90% of our laws originate from Europe. It is a scary figure; I understood the figure was 98%. The Leader tried to argue we could play a role, but at the time we could not access the secretarial input. As Ms Harkin said, such work cannot be done on a wing and a prayer. Senators Zappone and Quinn wrote a report on how we can don the green jersey. In my research I found the Nordic Council Presidium has decided to come together on a new study on how enhance co-operation between the Lower and Upper Houses-----
I was very generous to the Senator.
We have tried to initiate discussions on petitions and community participation.
I welcome Ms Harkin to the House. She is a neighbour and friend and I pay tribute to her great work in Europe. We in Ireland are extremely lucky to have excellent MEPs, in particular her analytical abilities and her commitment to a wide variety of areas in Ireland and Irish society. We are lucky she is on the agriculture committee. Given her background in the west, she has a unique understanding of the challenges and difficulties in the industry. She is working very hard to make sure the case is made for small Irish farmers, in particular those in the north west, who face very different challenges to other parts of the country. I pay tribute to her work in other areas. I was aware how well all MEPs work together in a European context.
The establishment of the community-led local development model is something with which my father was involved in 1990. It is something that has been replicated throughout Europe as the Irish way is the way forward. I note Ms Harkin's view on the alignment proposal and what that will do in an Irish context, in terms of development companies and local authorities. There are fears among local authorities that as many members of staff are contract workers, the expertise that has built up among Leader staff throughout the country will be lost as contracts come to an end. They are concerned they may be left with staff who are surplus to requirements, such as planners, engineers and so on. What impact will that have in continuing the very good work done by Leader?
I am delighted with the topic Ms Harkin chose to consider today. It is very thought-provoking. I feel the Seanad has always been abused by the leadership of the day. I do not want to be overly critical of the current Government but I do not absolve any previous one of blame. Fianna Fáil was in government more than any other party. The Seanad was always used and abused as a safety net for the also-rans or a breaking ground for new talent. The contributions of many of us from the political world were always overlooked in favour of the exclusive credit of the Independents, who have always made a unique contribution. However, because one happened to be a member of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party, one was almost discredited because one was seen as a has-been or on the way up.
The Press Gallery is empty today; I doubt anyone is watching proceedings in his or her office. That is a sad indictment, not of the work of this House, but of the people concerned. The attitude seems to be that the decision has been made, therefore let us get rid of the Seanad and bury it. I know from speaking to Fine Gael colleagues that, unfortunately, the grounds for that decision are as empty as political opportunism. The Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, was as much taken by surprise as anybody else when it was said just before the Fine Gael leader's dinner in Citywest. That is sad. The Taoiseach has stuck to that view, against the wishes of Senators and the Leader of the House, who is the best Leader I have known in the 11 years I have been here. He has introduced new initiatives such as inviting MEPs and others to address the House. I do not blame him for the current situation.
I have never known a Senator who is not an enthusiast for reform, rather, Senators are enthusiasts and proposers of radical reform. What has prevented it over the years is the inability of the political leadership to say it will depoliticise the Seanad, abolish the Whip and ensure all EU scrutiny takes place here. Since the Lisbon treaty, proposed legislation has been kicked to national parliaments for consideration. I understand in the region of 500 submissions have been made on various directives. I am not saying significant numbers of responses have not been made through officials in the Civil Service, but I understand Ireland has provided fewer than ten formal parliamentary responses. Perhaps there have been none. It is a sad indictment of the situation and feeds into people's understanding of Europe, the lack of democratic accountability and people being at arms length from Europe and not being involved in the process. I agree that the Seanad is the ideal link. We could debate proposed legislation. MEPs should be given the right to attend the Seanad to keep us informed. We do not want to add other meetings to their busy agendas, but such an arrangement would help greatly to connect the people with Europe and make use of what is a very good forum.
If the media covered the Seanad, other than the writers who write tongue-in-cheek pieces on days I get stuck into the Leader on an issue, the public could have a lot more confidence in our political system in its current form. No Senator would not change the electoral system or become involved in EU scrutiny or the confirmation of the appointment of members of the Judiciary, the new head of the ESB, a European Commissioner or other major public appointments.
Last week I said people's frustration with all politics is a result of their not having any sense of ownership of the policy platform of the day. I do not want to be overly critical of the Labour Party because Fianna Fáil and everybody else has used their manifestos to, for want of a better expression, buy elections. Afterwards, one is assimilated into permanent government. Once the honeymoon is over, apart from low hanging fruit, one is largely pursuing the policy of the previous Government. Naturally, the public becomes frustrated.
In terms of dealing with the public, we are reduced to dealing with medical cards, planning permission and the normal, run of the mill issues raised at constituency meetings every day. They are important, but where is the person who can say he or she went to his or her Deputy or Senator, gave them the idea for X and six months' later saw a Private Members' Bill proposed which was voted on and perhaps adopted? The democratic deficit of Europe is exemplified with the democratic deficit in these Houses.
Ms Harkin's proposals are right. There is not a person in the House who would disagree with her. Countless Taoisigh chose to maintain the status quo and effectively limit the great potential of the House in the legislative process.
On RTE last Saturday I was asked if it was frustrating to be in the Seanad. I said it was, but did not get to explain why, and somebody gave out to me afterwards and told me not to say I am frustrated in here. I meant one's proximity to the levers with which change can be made is such that of course one is frustrated when one is unable to move those levers.
I extend a very warm welcome to Ms Marian Harkin. We go back a long way, almost nine years to the day, if my calculations are right, when we campaigned together, Ms Harkin for the European election and I for the council elections. Thankfully we were both successful and had a very enjoyable campaign if my memory serves me correctly.
I agree with all Ms Harkin's views on how interactions and relationships with the European Parliament can be improved. I agree with her on the future of the Seanad, however long the future of this House may be. It is interesting that there was a time when the European Parliament had to shoulder the same kind of criticism as the Seanad does now, when it was considered to be ineffective and a waste of money, and all of those ill-informed comments were frequently thrown around. Thankfully, with the strengthening of the European Parliament's powers via the Lisbon treaty, that has all changed.
I sincerely feel the outreach initiative is a fantastic way of ensuring productive lines of communication are maintained between the Oireachtas and the European Parliament. We in the Oireachtas, especially in the Upper House, can learn a lot from the procedural ongoings in Strasbourg and Brussels. There appears to be more of an emphasis on consensus in the European Parliament rather than confrontation, which seems to be the preferred way of doing business in this House. If the high amount of agreement which is reached in the European Parliament is to be applauded, the Whip system which prevails in these Houses is strangling political progress. Surely we can learn from the European Parliament, which reaches 90% agreement, an extremely impressive statistic.
There is a need for more real connection between the Houses and the general public, and Ms Harkin alluded to this. Her Parliament aids this very capably through the petitions procedure whereby anyone can petition the European Parliament on a subject that comes before the EU sphere. There needs to be a stronger link between the committee system of both Houses of Parliament. The European Parliament Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, of which Ms Harkin is a member, is the obvious one for connection in the current climate of unemployment.
Ms Harkin referred to the habitats directive. No common sense was brought into that debate that went on for 12 or 13 years. One very simple, common-sense measure that could have been done over the last couple of years was that consideration should have been given to the contractors who had invested serious money in machinery for their livelihoods. Consideration should have been given to the fact that these people were the guys who are now providing turf to their neighbours as part of the agreement with the Department. They should have been given alternative bogs to do this instead of handing the power over to Bord na Móna. I thought this was just a simple, common-sense thing that should be done.
I am concerned about the future of the wind energy strategy. I have mentioned this to Ms Harkin in the past. I am concerned about the proposed number of wind farm developments across the country. Senator Barrett has followed me on this one. People's rights are being eroded as a result of the way the wind energy companies do their business, signing people up to contracts in the dark of night with confidentiality clauses. Unfortunately, all that happens is that we end up with divided communities. I brought a Bill before this House 14 months ago that was passed on Second Stage here about regulating the distances wind turbines should be from family homes. We are dealing with guidelines that are backdated to 2006 when wind turbines were 54 m high. Wind turbines that are going up today are 185 m high and we still have the same set-back distances. In Europe they are developing wind turbines that are 350 m high, which is absolutely staggering and extraordinary, and we are still dealing with set-back distances that were put in place in 2006.
Some recent developments have happened in Europe. There were European Court of Justice rulings and the Leth case. Because Ireland has not been compliant with a European directive, wind farms that were developed between 1999 and 2012 have not been compliant with this directive. As a result, the ruling states that people whose properties would be devalued as a result of it can sue the State. I got a consultant to examine the developments that have taken place so far and those in the pipeline, and we could be talking about a bill of €1 billion to this State as a result of that. It needs to be addressed. We could be talking about another Army deafness case.
The European Parliament is a lesson to us all on how to conduct politics through negotiation and not through negativity. We are lucky that we have the Seanad. Our democracy needs to be strengthened, not diluted or quenched. Those who propose the abolition of the Seanad are doing so as a deliberate political tactic to divert from their own shortcomings. There are proposals by various parties to increase the universal social charge to 3% on incomes in excess of €100,000 and that could bring in hundreds of millions of euro, and yet our Taoiseach wants to abolish the Seanad and save €4 million.
I met an experienced and seasoned Fine Gael Senator an hour before Ms Harkin came in here and when I told him she was coming in his line was, "She's one of the best." So I thought it was a lovely compliment to be extended to her.
It is very nice to echo Senator Kelly's statement. All accolades are delivered in Ms Harkin's direction. She has so much energy she could light up a good part of the national grid; we would not need any wind turbines then. I thank Ms Harkin for that. We have a problem with European legislation, and legislation in general. As Senator MacSharry said, we have a system which is very dominated by the Cabinet, which I fear is entirely dominated by the permanent government. When we can get it to work, it works very well. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, sat in Ms Harkin's chair and amended the Personal Insolvency Bill approximately 70 times - people such as Sinn Féin proposed lots of amendments. He was willing to sit down and listen and work through it, as Ms Harkin does in the European Parliament, line by line and not call on people to resign as in the Punch and Judy approach. Last night he accepted a motion from Senator Mary Ann O'Brien on charities and he is working on that. The Minister has amended the taxi Bill 80 times. People say you do not do that, there will be legal cases here and in Europe and one did not know what kind of Bill one has accumulated by incurring all these law cases. There was one during the week on occupational pensions not being properly transposed in the case of the Waterford Crystal workers.
We need scrutiny, checks and balances. It is not just the way people think about matters here. It is designed to do that. Sometimes I think the Dáil is a bear pit. Regarding continuous reruns of the last election, most of us would not be here if things had not gone wrong, and we are here to correct that. Some of the rest is like the Thierry Henry hand ball; you cannot keep rerunning that particular issue. We made a laugh of ourselves internationally on that incident.
I was very pleased to hear Ms Harkin's favourable remarks on the House of Lords because they sit down in a non-partisan way to examine the legislation. They are way ahead of us on separating the utility banks from the merchant banks, even though with London being thought of as a great centre of banking, one would have thought they would seek to defend it.
In an earlier time, when we were arguing for much lower air fares in Europe, Lord Bethell, a member of the House of Lords and the European Parliament, was able to produce useful documents on policy, exactly as Ms Harkin described. She also stated we need a hands-on approach to statutory instruments. I fully agree with her as they have just become a discretionary item that senior civil servants write and which amend legislation already passed by the Houses. One often finds the legislation is later repealed but the statutory instrument stands.
There is an immense amount of work for this House. The House had an interesting debate on water fluoridation on which there are two scientific arguments. The one I get from Trinity College Dublin’s dental school is that it is a largely beneficial measure. However, there are those on the other side of the argument who argue that fluoride is naturally present already in Irish water supplies and is, therefore, not necessary. Rather than debate this issue on a political party basis, the Seanad can debate what both sets of scientists say.
During the week, Mr. Seán Kelly, MEP, spoke about the faults in the design of the euro. It should have been subject to far more scrutiny here. In the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden, it was subject to a lot more scrutiny and they decided not to adopt it. It has already cost Ireland €64 billion and will probably head to €90 billion by the end. It should have been assessed stage by stage. What is superior to fixed exchange rates compared to flexible exchanges? Is there any future for Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy being locked into a fixed exchange rate with Germany? These are issues which we should have debated in this House. There is no substitute for a parliament. A parliament is way better than a committee. It is absolutely vital that this House is retained. It is not adequate to send legislative matters to committees.
The decision on women’s driving insurance was utterly bizarre in that the safer drivers now have to pay more because someone in Europe decided it was equality. Another bizarre issue Senator Crown raised concerned an Irish prohibition on the sale of below-cost cigarettes because it infringed competition rules. It is fair to say he was somewhat apoplectic about this decision on a commodity about which it is universally agreed damages people’s health. We could not bring in a ban on below-cost selling of tobacco products because Europe had decided against it. There are so many issues in which the Parliament should participate and not leave it to the civil servants to make these arrangements and understandings on our behalf.
The health insurance market is a complete shambles as a result of ignoring European decisions. More and more people are giving up health insurance while we stay in breach of the decisions. Meanwhile, the Department of Health which operates the market in a totally biased way seems not to be incurring any penalties.
I commend the wonderful contributions by Senators Keane, MacSharry and Kelly. Ms Harkin is most welcome to the Seanad and these series of addresses have been highly successful. We do want to exercise our role in legislation and participate with MEPs in a non-partisan way. Ms Harkin has definitely led by example and her vision for the Seanad is one which I warmly share.
I welcome Ms Harkin to the House and acknowledge her long-standing involvement in EU affairs. From her career in the European Parliament and the Lower House, one notes the diversity of policy areas in which she has made written declarations. She has an extremely strong record on human rights and equality issues which she demonstrated again today. I would single her out for her work on volunteerism and raising its profile both within Ireland and at European level. When she was rapporteur for the European Year of Volunteering, she singularly spearheaded the campaign to raise the issue of volunteerism. We both had the pleasure recently to attend the launch of the European Volunteer Centre’s employee-volunteering network. The centre stated that without the work done by Ms Harkin in laying the foundations for volunteerism, it would not have been able to launch its employee recognition programme.
I am concerned there is a perception that the deal has been done on the multi-annual financial framework. I understand the Parliament is not happy with this. This is all being played out behind the scenes. I am concerned that the framework agreed in the end will not be fit for purpose and will need to be amended each year. In fact, we are being disingenuous to the people. The EU is telling Ireland how to set budgets, yet there is a significant issue for the EU as to how it sets its budgets.
Ms Harkin referred to the programme for social change and innovation which comes into effect in January next year to support employment and social policies. Is there a balance in this programme between employment enhancement measures and social inclusion and protection measures? One of the previous component parts of the programme was progress. It looked at the recognition and role of civil society and supported children’s rights networks to work in the area of child poverty. While jobs are important, I am concerned the programme maintains the right balance between that and social protection and inclusion.
I agree with Ms Harkin’s proposals on the role of the Seanad and welcome any prospect of closer co-operation between the Seanad and the European Parliament. Bicameralism is the most efficient form of democratic representation. In the case of this Oireachtas, however, the distribution of power between the Houses severely limits the contribution of the Seanad. Reforms in line with Ms Harkin’s proposals would make a contribution to filling a new equilibrium and provide the Seanad with a renewed energy, as well as a sense of purpose which would suit modern Ireland.
I am concerned that, despite the general consensus existing on this topic for several years, we have seen little progress being made to promote this mutually beneficial arrangement. I am very mindful of the fact that similar propositions were made almost a decade ago by the Committee on Procedure and Privilege’s Sub-Committee on Seanad Reform. Its report concluded:
The Seanad should be given a new role in EU affairs with responsibility for —
i Assessing legislative and other proposals going before EU Councils;
ii Reviewing draft EU legislation of major national policy importance;
iii Providing Irish MEPs with a domestic forum to discuss EU issues and account for their work;
While the engagement we are having with MEPs is a welcome development, how would Ms Harkin progress the other two goals? As she said, we need enhanced co-operation between the Seanad and the European Parliament. For that to work, we need to probe a little more into how such co-operation could take place. I welcome the engagement we are having with MEPs as it gives us an opportunity to engage with European issues which will impact later on Irish citizens. We must be mindful of this two-way process as seen in the multi-annual financial framework discussion.
Like other Members, I extend a welcome to Ms Harkin to the Seanad. As a constituent of hers, I see at first hand all the important work she is doing and I get feedback about it from the community and voluntary sector. I am very heartened that we have such an elected representative in the European Parliament.
Sometimes debating in the Seanad can be marked by frustration. We are all aware it is up for abolition. For many, its role is often seen as little more than a consultative body that is rarely heard. Despite the hard work many Senators do, the public does not see the merit of the work done in the Chamber. Ms Harkin referred to the difference between being a representative in the Oireachtas and in the European Parliament, in that there is no government or opposition in the latter, allowing a Member to influence outcomes. That is not possible in the Oireachtas.
Many Senators have mentioned that recent treaty changes have significantly increased the decision-making powers of the European Parliament. However, we would hardly realise that in scanning the newspapers, as the European Parliament rarely features in public debate. Ms Harkin has pointed out that the European Parliament does matter and alluded to the directive on electromagnetic fields and MRI scans. I am concerned that we need to communicate this to the people. The electromagnetic field issue was a significant one and if agreement had not been reached, we would not be able to carry out MRI scans. How do we let people know how important the European Parliament is and how does Ms Harkin, as an MEP, communicate this to them
Professor Brigid Laffan of UCD often talks about communicating Europe not being a problem. Ms Harkin, as an MEP, is doing high-level work, but how does she communicate the importance of that work to people here when they do not see any evidence of it? The communication problem is not just the lack of reporting on this work in the media, it is also a problem for the Oireachtas. While scrutiny of European directives and regulations has increased across the Oireachtas committees, other legislative issues and constituency work take up the time of Members. While some committees deal with at least 15 pieces of proposed legislation, this can happen with very few committee members in attendance and no media presence. The media might not even pick up on an issue unless it was something topical. That is the reason there is so little knowledge of and debate on draft legislation when it is passed in Brussels or Strasbourg, despite the fact that it will have a profound effect on citizens. Given that much of the legislation enacted in the Oireachtas has its genesis in EU legislation, I do not believe the level of political and public scrutiny is acceptable.
The purpose of this debate is to highlight the role of the Seanad and show how it and the European Parliament can work together. Ms Harkin has mentioned that Deputies are often busy with legislation and constituency work and described the role she thinks the Seanad should play. Senator Marc MacSharry has pointed out that we do not know what is going to happen with regard to the Seanad in the future or how, if it continues, Members will be elected. If we had a Seanad, the role of which involved greater oversight of EU legislation, how does Ms Harkin think we could ensure Senators with an eye on a seat in the Lower House would keep EU issues at the heart of debate in the Seanad? It is important that if we enhance the role of the Seanad, we ensure that role is given priority and that Senators are not pulled away on other issues. What is Ms Harkin's view?
Ms Harkin has mentioned the Leader programme and the community-led local development, CLLD, model and that such alignment proposals are coming down the track. We are all aware that the current Leader model has been admired at European level and that MEPs see at first hand the esteem there is in the European Union for the Irish model. However, when proposals are made to change the model, do our MEPs lobby for the retention of the current model which they hear on a daily basis is so important?
With regard to the constitutional convention, has Ms Harkin submitted proposals on reform to it or on what she believes the scrutiny of European Union proposals should involve?
I welcome Ms Harkin. I learned a lot from her during my brief period in the European Parliament. I am delighted to hear that she is involved in the globalisation fund because it played an important part in the Limerick and Waterford regions. I remember dealing with the fund when a problem arose in these areas. The lack of knowledge of the existence of the fund - even the Government of the day was not aware of its existence - highlights the lack of knowledge of European directives and regulations. When the Dell announcement was made, the Government was unaware of the existence of the fund, but I highlighted it. I found it interesting that when it arranged a meeting with the Commissioner within seven days of the announcement, the Commission responded quickly and amended the regulations because Dell workers at the time did not qualify for funding. The rule was clear that the jobs had to be moving outside Europe, but the Commission responded positively and quickly because it saw the need to amend the regulations. In the case of Limerick, the jobs were moving to Poland which was within the European Union.
Owing to the changes that have occurred in recent years, people now have a huge interest in what is going on in the European Union. I remember canvassing during the Lisbon treaty campaign in 2008 and at the time people said to me that they were sorry, that it had nothing to do with them, that they were getting nothing from the European Union and that it had no effect on their lives. People seemed to have more of a connection with US and UK politics than they had with European politics. That has now changed.
There is a huge lack with regard to flagging what is coming down the line regarding proposals made by the Commission. In November 2012 the Commission outlined its programme for 2013. How can we become more actively involved in dealing with what is on the Commission's programme as it goes through the programme during the year? In 2012 the Commission identified 129 items to be dealt with in 2013. However, we have not discussed even one of these proposals. How does Ms Harkin suggest the Seanad should deal with this issue?
I welcome Ms Harkin and concur with the many tributes paid to her for her tremendous work on behalf of the people of the constituency she represents. She is full of energy and through the extensive portfolio she outlined for us we can see that she is involved in an amazing amount of work. She is pushing at an open door here and will certainly receive a lot of support from us in seeking closer co-operation in ensuring the Seanad plays a role in the scrutiny of EU proposals. I welcome her support for the retention of the Seanad, an issue on which I am aware that she has been campaigning actively. Many Members on the Government benches sing from the same hymn sheet and would be happy to support her efforts. I hope we succeed in that regard, not for personal gain or future involvement, but because it is important that the Seanad is retained in a reformed state.
I am aware that Ms Harkin has been involved in a burning issue in the constituency, that of turf cutting. Does she see any possibility of the European Union agreeing to adjustments that would enable turf cutting to continue on a limited basis on some of the bogs where it has been impossible to arrange transfers? Ms Harkin has met a number of delegations to discuss this issue. Is there any chink of light in that regard or is there any hope we will secure some agreement on or adjustment to the arrangements?
This is Ms. Harkin's second term in the European Parliament. What does she regard as her greatest achievement for the constituency she represents?
I welcome Ms Harkin. I will be unable to wait to hear her response as there is to be an important meeting of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party at 1 p.m. Senator Paschal Mooney will remain to hear the rest of the debate.
Ms Harkin does an excellent job as a MEP for the western region. Like her other MEP colleagues for the region, she is well known and seen as active and being involved in campaigns that affect people directly. I am delighted that she is a member of the European Liberal, Democratic and Reform Party, ELDR. We share that party and I am vice president of the group at the Council of Europe.
I regret the proposed loss of a European Parliament seat for Ireland, from 12 seats to 11.
The Government should veto this. We voted in favour of Croatia joining and supported that move and now we are losing one MEP. If Turkey joins next, will we be down to six MEPs, just like Malta? It is a very serious issue. Ireland is the most peripheral region in the European Union and we are down to 11 seats. Ms Harkin might indicate the configuration. For example, will County Meath be included? This is very serious in terms of representation of a region like the west of Ireland.
We were conned under the Lisbon treaty which stated there would be delegation of responsibility to parliaments. The Dáil and the Seanad are the two Houses of the Oireachtas; committees cannot do what we can do in the Houses. So far as I know, there has been no objection to legislation being forwarded from the European Union to Ireland, which is very disappointing.
The other issue which came up was that this was the only country of the 27 member states to see eel fishing being banned for 90 years. It was the craziest decision ever made in this Parliament, by the Government of the time, in particular the Green Party Minister, Mr. Eamon Ryan, and the others who went along with it. We have thrown away that industry, while Northern Ireland has retained it.
A directive was discussed in the House recently in regard to the below cost selling of cigarettes brought forward by the Minister for Health who purports to want to have smoking banned in cars. The tobacco lobby is very strong in Europe.
These measures are slipping through without the scrutiny Ms Harkin would like to see in this House. I would like to see liaison between this House and Ms Harkin and her colleagues in the European Parliament. That would be real democracy - having this and the other House, with our MEPs, discussing legislation and directives from the European Parliament. Senator John Kelly has made a valiant effort to solve the problem of wind turbines, a very important issue, as they have destroyed lives and will destroy more.
It is a great pleasure to welcome Ms Harkin and I thank her for her expansive contribution. I echo everything that has been said on both sides of the House about her efficiency and ability as an MEP, particularly as an Independent, because we sometimes forget she does not have the backup support of a political party. She has managed to carve out a particular niche for herself which is vital in addressing pertinent issues, in rural Ireland in particular.
I have two questions. First, can Ms Harkin give us an indication of what the sentiment is in Europe in the context of President Higgins' speech to the European Parliament last week - he has reiterated his views in an interview with the Financial Times today - about the moral dilemma and the moral questions facing Europe on the issue of macroeconomics. Ms Harkin might convey to the House the sentiment in Europe on how Ireland is seen in the context of macroeconomics as it applies to banking union and so on. I know it is a big question, but I am sure she can encapsulate what I am attempting to get at in order to give us some indication of the thinking processes among her colleagues.
At a much more local level, on the fracking issue, can Ms Harkin give us an update on the debate or discussion, if any, taking place at European Parliament level? We do not hear much about what is happening in the Parliament. I know a number of the committees and the energy directorate have been leading the charge on this issue. Is the environment directorate involved and is any Europe-wide policy being formulated? As Ms Harkin knows, there is an absence of policy in this regard. This is not necessarily to seek her own views on how Ireland should proceed but to obtain a European perspective. While we can to a degree act unilaterally, ultimately, we will be relying to a great extent on what is coming from the European Union in that regard.
I reiterate again our appreciation of Ms Harkin in being among us today and thank her for her very kind comments on the Seanad and its future functions, to which I hope the good people of Ireland will have the sense to listen, with the many others who are marshalling an argument in favour of its retention. I hope that, ultimately, the intelligence of the electorate will come to the fore and that we will be here this time next year, not so much talking about abolition but about reform. I wish Ms Harkin well personally and in her political career.
Ms Marian Harkin
I thank the House very much. The Cathaoirleach will have to invite me more often because this is good for the soul.
Ms Harkin has no ambitions to come here, has she?
Ms Marian Harkin
I thank Members very much for their kind words which are genuinely appreciated.
I agree with Senator Cáit Keane on the 40% target for women on boards. Before I was elected, if somebody had asked me whether I agreed with quotas and so on, I would have said "No," but I have changed my mind. I now see that the system has to be changed from within. Once there are enough women involved, it becomes the norm. I do not believe in having quotas forever; they are only needed for a certain length of time in order that it becomes normal and critical mass is achieved. Decision-making is better when it is balanced between men and women. Women are not better; neither are men, but they do some good things together.
The Senator went through the significant role played by the Seanad in detail and also referred to the need for prior approval and unanimity on issues such as the common consolidated corporate tax base. That is as much in the hands of this House as it is in the hands of the Lower House. The Senator also talked about the need for checks and balances. If one was to use a footballing term, one would say there were some good full backs in the Seanad and that they were absolutely needed. I also agree with the Senator on the petitions committee.
I thank Senator Marc MacSharry for his kind words. He asked about the alignment process with regard to the Leader programme boards, as did Senator Kathryn Reilly. I could say a great deal on this issue, but as my time is limited, I will not, except to say the Irish model is seen as one of the best at European level and the Court of Auditors has given its approval. It manages to ensure voluntary and community participation. The Leader programme is not just about jobs and money, it is also about building communities. If we take this away and place it under the governance of county managers, we will do a huge disservice to the Leader programme. It is not that I have anything against local authorities. Most of those present will have served on a local authority and I know that they do good work. However, 5% of the rural development programme moneys is set aside not for politicians but for ordinary citizens. I talked about participative democracy. People can effect change by participating. The current proposals will take this away from them - I am sure of it. I am not saying the Minister will change his mind or do a U-turn because, at the end of the day, I come from the European Parliament where we negotiate and try to reach a compromise. I hope the Minister will find a way to work with the local development companies and ensure there will continue to be community and voluntary participation under the Leader programme.
Senator Marc MacSharry also talked about parliamentary responses from Ireland. I honestly cannot answer that question, but I know that none has come to my committee which deals with employment and social affairs issues. The Senator has said people do not have a sense of ownership of the policy platform. We all agree with this. What we need to try to do, as politicians, is to bridge that gap in some way. If there was a petitions committee and a citizens' initiative that was meaningful, although it would obviously have to be restrictive in certain ways, people would see that democracy was not just about the numbers 1, 2, 3 that they place on their ballot paper but also about how they, as interested citizens, could be involved. If this House could play a role in that regard, the opportunities would be enormous and the rewards very significant.
I canvassed with Senator Kelly and have not forgotten this. I am not sure if I should call him John or Senator Kelly.
He left Ms Harkin.
Ms Marian Harkin
I am glad someone else raised that issue. I did not quite know how to get over it, but we remain friends and that is what matters.
Senator John Kelly talked about the importance of the link between committees and I absolutely agree. He also mentioned the habitats directive. What happened in that instance, largely, was that scientists - good people - sat in offices and drew lines on maps. I will refer to this issue when I speak about turf cutting.
There was a scientific basis for what was happening but who was thinking about the people who cut the turf and owned the land, and whose lives would be impacted? We see the problems we have now.
In respect of wind energy, there is no European legislation regulating distances from people's homes. Different member states have different policies but the Senator mentioned the two recent judgments by the court. The first concerned the environmental impact assessment directive where Ireland was found not to have applied Article 3 of the directive, which is very significant. This has been ongoing for a length of time. There was another judgment. I forget where the lady is from; she may be Austrian. It is still open but it definitely states that if a citizen has been disadvantaged by the fact that European legislation was not implemented the way it should have been, it is then open to that person to go to their national courts to seek redress. I have no doubt this will happen here. We need to take note of that when we are putting in place our legislation. It is a problem that may face the Government because of the judgment on the environmental impact assessment directive.
Senator Barrett, whom I thank for his kind words, spoke about problems with some European legislation. He said that we need scrutiny and checks and balances. We have already said that and we all agree with it. He spoke about all the work that needs to be done in that regard. He mentioned fluoridation and how we need a debate on a scientific rather than a political basis. I agree with him. We all have our own perspectives but we need to look at it from that perspective.
Senator Barrett mentioned the design of the euro. I did not agree with Margaret Thatcher's views on many issues. When she died, a number of articles were written about her and something I had not read before concerned her comments on the euro. I cannot remember the quote, which is a pity, because it was a very good one. However, she was correct when she pointed to the threats and how it is not possible to have a loose common currency. I think Senator Kelly also spoke about that. Senator Barrett said there had not been enough discussion here at the time. Certainly, there was not enough informed discussion, which comes back to the point I made. For this House to be involved, it needs resources and expertise. None of us can fly by the seat of our pants. If that discussion had taken place in an informed way, we might have made a different decision but we did not and we are where we are and live with the consequences of it, which are catastrophic. We have a currency that is not fit for purpose.
I agree that it is vital this House be retained. We have all spoken about that and I hope we are not talking just to ourselves and that somebody is listening. I think it was Senator Mooney or Senator MacSharry who said the Irish people are very intelligent. I would be very hopeful that when this question comes before the Irish people, they will balance it up and down. Yes, there is the sense that we have too many politicians and they are paid too much, and people question what they do. However, people look beyond that and look in more depth at our democracy and the reasons behind the various checks and balances.
I thank Senator van Turnhout for her kind words on volunteering. I will not say any more but we know how important that is. She mentioned the multi-annual financial framework in the sense that the deal is done. The European Parliament has not accepted it but the truth is that the deal is done because to go back and ask those member states for more money would open up Pandora's box. Nobody is going to do that but the Senator is right when she says there are issues about the budget. I will give one example. If money is laid out for each year and some of it is not spent, it goes back to the member states at the end of that year. In the case of a Leader programme, all of the money would not be spent in the first two or three years but in the last three or four, one would spend much more so there is a shortfall. Every year, the EU does not have enough money because its systems do not work properly. We need more money and the budget is not fit for purpose from the perspective of amount involved, but my view is that the European Parliament will let that go but wants changes to ensure that the budget works effectively.
I agree with the Senator about social inclusion and protection. We are concentrating on jobs and there is nothing more important but we cannot lose sight of initiatives like the PROGRESS programme. We are not losing sight of it; we are fighting for it and keeping it there. The report produced ten years' ago could be written today and we need say no more.
Senator Reilly spoke about the Seanad and how, to some people, what is happening in the European Parliament hardly seems to matter. She mentioned the electromagnetic fields directive on MRI scanners. When the legislation in that regard was put in place ten years' ago, it was said that after ten years we would come back to it because there was a derogation. This concerns the health and safety of workers exposed to electromagnetic radiation. We had to look at what happened in the mean time and if we did not have that done and dusted, MRI might not go ahead because of concerns for the health and safety of workers. Most people do not know that and just expect the system to work, which is part of our role as well. Our role is to ensure that systems work.
I will give a simple example of how one communicates it. I visited two schools in County Clare last Friday and a school in north Donegal on Monday morning. I spoke to those primary schoolchildren about the medical devices directive. When I spoke to them about it, I spoke about how their granny's hip replacement must be fit for purpose and work well. I also told the students in Clare that medical device companies, such as Zimmer in Shannon, Covidien in Athlone and Abbott in Sligo and Longford, are located here because the regulations suit them and that, therefore, we must find the balance. I try to adapt whatever legislation is at hand to the level of the person to whom I am talking and explain how it impacts on him or her. If we had more of that, it would help. It is not that I have found a solution but it is one way that seems to work.
Did I table any motion at the Constitutional Convention? No, I did not. I viewed that as an opportunity for ordinary citizens. Senator Colm Burke spoke about the globalisation fund and argued that people have a greater interest in Europe and that the Seanad needs to be more actively involved. He asked me how that could happen when the Commission comes forward with its proposals. We have the Presidency for six months, and this is a way to influence what happens. One can exert influence during the next six months because the Irish Presidency still has an impact. One can have a significant influence through MEPs because they are on the various committees. The Commission comes forward with its work programme but the MEPs make decisions about what happens there and through the Commission and Commissioners who have different portfolios. That would need to be structured and regulated. If the Seanad had as a core role some of the issues about which we spoke earlier, it could do that.
Senator Mullins spoke about the retention of the Seanad and turf cutting. He asked the most difficult question I could have been asked here today, namely, whether there is any chance of the EU agreeing to change boundaries to allow people to cut turf on bogs where there are no alternatives. The Commission has said it is considering the issue in the round. There may be some possibility of changing some boundaries and including new areas that scientifically would be more appropriate to include. It will be very difficult. As I have said previously, we did it badly in the first place and are now reaping the whirlwind. Having said that, people deserve to expect that we would do everything we can to ensure those boundaries are changed. There is a considerable amount of goodwill and people are willing to work. I know Senator Kelly has been very much involved in this. It is a question of trying to work with people. Unfortunately, neither we nor the Government have a free hand. We are constantly looking over our shoulders at the Commission. It is not a closed door but it is open only a chink.
The Senator also asked me about my greatest achievement. I have two, one of which is the globalisation fund in the sense of ensuring that construction workers here benefited from it because we all like to be able to deliver a few bob. None of us ever managed that on our own but with the help of others, we can. The second achievement is legislative change.
I have had success in a few areas for what I call the small person, whether the small company or the individual, changing a little bit of legislation and influencing its implementation. That is what we all want to do, if we can manage a little bit of that. I do not perform miracles or move mountains. I take one little step at a time. Unless one is the Minister for Finance one does not manage more than that and even the Minister for Finance must answer to others.
Senator Leyden asked whether we could veto the loss of a seat. He is not here at the moment. I would love to say we could but can we? We signed the Lisbon treaty and this was part of the deal we signed up to. I do not want to see the west of Ireland lose a seat but I have heard that somebody else might block it. I know the Government will not. At least I have been told it will not. He also spoke about the yellow card. That is a power the Oireachtas has, which, if it had the resources and expertise could be used widely.
The Senator also mentioned eel fishing. I do not know why that ban happened. Northern Ireland and France did not ban it but we did. I do not think the science was good enough. There certainly is a problem with the eel population but there was not sufficient evidence to ban the fishing. I have already dealt with the question of wind turbines.
In response to Senator Mooney, I cannot deal with the speech made by President Higgins except to say that it was well received in the Parliament. I was sitting in the middle and could see that some parts of the House clapped more than others. I could certainly see that it was not a universal applause but it was a warm reception. He raised issues that need to be raised. The thinking at European level has been too much informed by the hawks I spoke of earlier, those who have power. He raised that issue in a philosophical way. If I was raising those issues I would annoy the hell out of somebody but he managed to raise them in a way that makes people think rather than makes them angry. That was important. I am glad he raised them and they needed to be raised.
The Senator also mentioned fracking which is a local issue because I hear in Clare that the geology will not support it but there is no doubt that there is shale oil in Leitrim and west Cavan. The Commissioner for the Environment, Janez Potonik, has said that there are gaps in EU legislation. He is looking at that. There is no Europe-wide legislation. There will be no European policy because some member states and some regions have banned it. The Senator said he did not want my view so I will not give it but it is in the public domain and people know what it is.
I never said that.
Ms Marian Harkin
I apologise.
I invite Ms Harkin to give us her view.
Ms Marian Harkin
My view is that first we need to ensure that there are no gaps in European legislation. For places such as west Cavan and County Leitrim we need to consider agriculture and tourism. This is a short-term industry. I have commissioned one report on what is happening in New York state. I have real concerns about the industry. Nobody trusts large institutions or big business any more. I am no different from anybody else. I believe that it is not the way to go. Having said that, what can I specifically do about it? I can try to ensure that there are no gaps in European legislation so that if it were to come to pass and I opposed it, at least there would be safeguards.
I thank the Senators. As always I have gone on longer than I should have. I really enjoyed myself today. I hope some of the Senators have too. I leave it to the Cathaoirleach and others to decide how in the future there could be greater co-operation on specific issues. We can have a nice conversation but if there are specific issues of concern to the Seanad and to us we could set aside a time to work on them. Obviously, the Senators are busy and I am busy so there could not be too much of that work but it might be a good start. I wish the Senators well and I hope that when the people are asked about the retention of Seanad Éireann, they will think very carefully and vote for its retention.
I thank Ms Harkin for a very forthright and interesting contribution to the House. We wish her well for her continued success at the European Parliament.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m on Tuesday, 7 May.