Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank members for their thought-provoking contributions. While I cannot begin to try to predict the future of Bulgaria, Italy, Slovenia, Spain or France, what is clear is that it would be inaccurate to suggest the crisis is behind us. A great deal of work still needs to be done at European Union level. If I had my way, the first step taken at EU level would be to implement the commitment made nearly a year ago to break the link between sovereign debt and bank debt. Until we do this, the precariousness that exists in certain member states, which places the entire eurozone in a precarious position, will continue. We must break the link between sovereign and bank debt.

Ireland occupies a position on the high moral ground, as it were, because we have implemented the requirements of the troika programme admirably and taken all the pain asked of us, although I do not doubt the steps we took were necessary. We recapitalised and stabilised our banks, for example, and are in a strong position to advocate for developments at eurozone and EU level which other countries, owing to their economic difficulties, may not believe they can do persuasively or with authority. Ireland must take a lead on this issue. This is what we are trying to do but to fully realise this objective Europe must put in place all the elements of banking union. The Irish Presidency has been taking a lead in this matter and has made considerable progress to date. We secured an agreement to establish a single supervisory mechanism, for example, although it would be wrong to believe this new arrangement will provide a solution to the crisis. The new mechanism is only a start as we must also put in place a resolution mechanism and Europe-wide guarantee scheme. We are on the right path and the process is being driven by the Irish Presidency. I hope we will continue to lead and drive this agenda beyond the Presidency because there is no substitute to the current approach, even if it will be politically difficult for many countries to pursue it.

It will be challenging to bring the variant and divergent public opinion in Europe from the creditor countries to the so-called debtor countries. We have to meet in the middle and find a way forward together. Pursuing the path of banking union, separating the link between bank debt and sovereign debt, is fundamental to that.

There was a question about the UK. Obviously today is significant because of the intervention of the former Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, with whom I can only say I disagree. I do not believe a cogent case can be argued for a UK exit. Although it is not for us to intervene or interfere in the domestic matters of the UK, any more than it was appropriate for members of UKIP to come and campaign here during our referenda, it is important that we do what we can as a friend and neighbour to keep the UK on the European path. It is in our interest to do so but, just as important, it is in the interest of the UK to do so. That is my firm conviction.

I refer to the question on scrutiny. The Deputy has raised a very interesting point about our political system, which was also alluded to by the Acting Chairman, Deputy Dooley. I believe absolutely that our public representatives are as capable as any public representatives the world over. I will always defend anybody who can get elected in our cut-throat electoral environment; who has something significant to offer to national politics. Sometimes I hear condescension on the airwaves in this country, almost a denigration of political figures simply because they are elected, something I refute completely. I entirely agree about the structure, however. The Deputy knows this as well as I do - we served on Dublin City Council together. Most of the elected representatives present - probably everybody around this table - have served as a town, county or city councillor, which shows the natural progression. Our electoral system certainly needs to be radically overhauled and changed. That would serve the national level of politics much better and extremely well. It would be much easier for Deputies and Senators to invest their time in legislating, which is what we are elected to do. However, it is difficult for Deputies to dedicate as much time as they should to legislating because of the demands of our electoral system. It is a catch-22 situation, and a real pity. Any Member of either House is well capable of doing the job of scrutinising but because of the constraints of the electoral system they are probably not able to do this as well as they should and I include myself in that. All of us are constrained by the nature of our system.

"Politics of the pendulum" is an accurate metaphor. One hears cries of victory from both the left and the right when elections take place. The reality, of course, is that one administration is replaced by another. At present, there is a pendulum at work across the Continent of Europe, because of the failure of domestic politics and, to some extent, of EU politics. We must be cognisant of that and must try to challenge it. We must find ways to deliver on the really crucial political agenda of the day, namely, job creation. There are 26 million people unemployed and youth unemployment is hitting more than 50% in a number of member states. This is not acceptable. As legislators and policy makers, we have to change that. It is not easy. I dispute the simplified solutions that are put forward by many people from many quarters who pretend there is an easy way. There is no such way but that is not to say we should give up. We have to fight for the politics concerned which is, effectively, the politics of the centre, whether centre-left or centre-right. It is about building consensus and finding solutions that can bring the majority of the people with us. We have to fight for that because if we cede that ground we are giving up to the politics of extremes, whether these are on the left or the right. That is very dangerous and is not in our interest. In countries that have no government or have interim or unstable governments the reason is that the politics of the centre has not been able to deliver. We must work with our colleagues from all member states and of all political hues to try to deliver for citizens in a rational and sane way.

Senator Burke mentioned the high level of ministerial attendance at Council meetings, for which I thank him. I am glad he noted this because we have worked intensively and have created a whole new structure in Government. I chair an interdepartmental committee which is almost exclusively dedicated to monitoring engagement with all European institutions on behalf of the Government. We have certainly raised our game which is essential in the pursuit of our interests, both as a nation and as a component part of the European Union. We have to be there at the table to share our views and advance our policy agenda, whether this is on the banking union, the separation of debt or whatever. We have to be at the table advocating loudly and coherently and building alliances, and we are investing much time in doing that.

There was a question about the European Parliament which goes into the area of the questions raised by Deputy Murphy so, if I may, I will take them together. I will not go into the rights and wrongs of the reduction of the number of seats by one seat. Our representatives cannot cover all the European Parliament committees on our behalf, which is unfair. I have been doing much thinking on this. Small and medium-sized countries are disadvantaged in the European Parliament. On the other hand, if one takes Germany or France or the bigger countries, these are not represented proportionately in the European Parliament so they can argue very coherently they are disadvantaged because they are not represented on a per capitabasis. There is something fundamentally flawed about that whether one comes at it from the perspective of a big country or a small country and we must do something to achieve an equilibrium. We must do something to ensure that every member state is represented and heard and that will be a big challenge. I suppose that is where I depart from my colleagues, the other European affairs Ministers, or at least from most of them, in that I believe there will be a requirement for treaty change in the future. Not today, not before the European elections but in the medium term we will have to do something to seriously overhaul the institutional framework of the European Union. I do not buy into blaming the Commission for everything, blaming the Parliament or the Council - it is not a blame game. The institutions have served us reasonably well to this point but we are moving into a new phase where we have an integrated monetary union and will have greater economic co-ordination. We have to make it more accountable and must connect it more to the citizens. Undoubtedly, there is a role for national parliaments but there must be a better role for the European Parliament and other institutions.

The Deputy asked for my personal views. I am not representing the Government in this respect; I believe we have a lot of work to do in terms of framing a Government policy on some of these issues. That is a job for after the European Presidency when we have more time. However, if I were asked, I would like to see a situation where every member state is represented equally in some sort of upper Chamber. This is something for which Declan Ganley, for example, has advocated. I do not agree with Mr. Ganley on many issues but on this one I do. If we are to have a meaningful legislature which represents the interests of all corners of Europe, of the so-called periphery, the core, north, south, big, small, then we need a Chamber where everybody is represented equally, which has an input and full representation in the legislative process. That is a very big leap and is not something that will happen in the immediate term but it will have to happen. It would allow the European Parliament, the lower Chamber of Deputies, to be proportionately representative of the population of Europe, which would be the quid pro quo.

I refer to the directly elected President of the Commission. That role will have to be defined. It is an EPP policy and also one my party espouses. Again, I am not speaking on behalf of the Government on this point. I do not know what the socialist or liberal positions are on this nor indeed the position of other political groups across Europe. The idea of a directly elected President of the Commission is hugely important. Would that person also chair the Council? I believe he or she probably should in order to bring the institutions closer together. Should the Commissioners be directly elected? That is something to which we must give further consideration. Can we continue to have 27 or 28, 30 or 32 Commissioners? My view on this is on the record. Before the second vote on the Lisbon treaty I made the point to campaigners who opposed the referendum that we do not get everything we like. I have never believed every member state should at all times have a Commissioner.

Since we enlarged to 27 member states, my view has been that we should have a rotational Commission, one where we could have a front bench and back bench, almost like Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State so that resources could be concentrated with spokespeople representing the clear core policy areas of the Union. We are making up commissionerships at this point which is not credible. At a time when everybody is talking about cutting back on the cost of government and reducing the number of ministries and junior ministries in member states, why on earth should we continue to expand at EU level? That is my personal view and it is obviously not a stated view of the Government.

When it comes to how the Commission will be selected on this occasion, we have an interesting new departure because each of the main political groupings will put forward a candidate for the presidency, not to be voted on directly across the Union - we have not come to that point yet. However, the candidate for the EPP will lead the EPP campaign across Europe, the candidate for the socialists will lead the socialist campaign and the candidate for the liberals will lead for the liberals. Possibly the Green Party and others will do the same - that has yet to be determined. Certainly the three biggest political groupings will have a lead candidate to go forward for election, setting out a manifesto and political platform. That is a positive development and will raise the debate in terms of focusing more effectively on pan-European issues than on previous campaigns. It is a step forward based on the provisions of the Lisbon treaty. We have yet to see how it will work and how the political groupings will select their candidates. We do not know how the candidates will fair and whether they will run campaigns across every EU state as I certainly hope is the case. It is a new departure - a trial - but an exciting one that I believe will enhance and give a face to the European elections making it a bit more real for people.

Senator Colm Burke asked about the role of the Seanad. I have spoken about this on the record in the Seanad. I believe I have been asked about this every time I have appeared in the Seanad in the past two years. Every time I have said that I believe the role for the Seanad in EU scrutiny is an obvious one. It would mirror the role of the House of Lords in the UK and mirror upper houses in many other member states. It would enhance the level of scrutiny that I firmly support. It is ultimately a decision for the Seanad and I urge the Senator and his colleagues to pursue it doggedly because there is an obvious gap that could be filled very effectively by the Seanad.

I hope I have touched upon pretty much everything. I may not have answered everything in great detail, but I believe I have hit on most of the points that have been made.