Ms Phil Prendergast, MEP:

I thank Ms Cahill, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Whelan for their presentations. Like Senator Burke, I have served as a Member of the Oireachtas and in Europe and have seen how things are done differently. I would say the European model is extremely efficient. In Europe, we do not have an Opposition that wants to screech down every proposal made by the Government. We have a sort of consensus in terms of how we work in each group. Our group is the second biggest group in the Parliament. The group that Fine Gael belongs to is the biggest group. We operate on the basis of proposals, amendments, consensus, agreement and legislation. There is terrific oversight.

I recently had an opportunity to address the Seanad as an MEP. Every MEP has committees in Europe that are their main committees. My main committees are the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and the Internal Market and Consumer Affairs Committee, of which I am the only Irish member. When I addressed the Seanad, I got some feedback on the committees I am on. It would make terrific sense for upcoming legislation to be brought to the Seanad for additional oversight. This use of the Seanad would enhance its reputation. It would be good for the Seanad to have an opportunity to be addressed by somebody working in another parliament on an issue of relevance to Ireland. Equally, it would be good to give those who will be affected by European legislation an opportunity to address this House or another house. We need a process of joined-up thinking whereby the outcomes have a determination and there is agreement through the different parliamentary groups. We work on something similar on a smaller scale in the European Parliament system, which works well.

I would like to comment on how the UK is behaving. My view, which is based on what I have been told, is that UK MEPs do not work on the committees or do the job of MEPs. They are masters at exploiting any opportunity to take the microphone in the hemicycle during the plenary week, on which all of our work is focused. They make their political statements and avail of the opportunity to get wide coverage. The grunt work is done in the background by other MEPs. There is always a subliminal level on which people perceive things. One can be a sceptical person and have validity for being a sceptic, or one can be a person who works to contribute in a real way to what goes on in the Parliament. To put it differently, one can do the grunt work or one can focus on the opportunity for media exposure or even media exploitation. We need to have a balanced view of this. I think England is very important to us and I think we have a very good relationship, but that is just me.

We will vote on the multi-annual financial framework next month. Forty years on, Ireland is still a net recipient of the budget. I think we will contribute €10 billion and receive €12 billion. The renegotiation of the Common Agricultural Policy is hugely important, of course. I absolutely agree with Mr. Whelan's point that MEPs are under-used as a resource. I welcome the opportunity that has been presented to us by the decision to hold these meetings on Thursdays once more. Our week in Europe is heavily focused on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. It makes sense, from an MEP's perspective, for the committee to meet on Thursdays. I appreciate that Friday sittings do not suit everybody. I know we are in straitened times. Perhaps the decision to allow MEPs to address the Seanad will start something that leads to our having an important and useful role in the Oireachtas. That should be evaluated and we should know what the outcome is. I am delighted to have been here today to hear the delegates' presentations. I thank the committee for giving me an opportunity to contribute.