Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome Deputy Doyle to the House. It is helpful to have her title clarified. During Ms Doyle's speech she referred to togging out in the Irish jersey. This is an interesting question, but we do not have time to dwell fully on it. Some members who go to Brussels are accused of going native; others are accused of simply peddling an Irish line. What is the balance? Do we send people to represent our constituencies in Europe or to present the views of Europe to us? How does it work best? There is a fine line between the two. I will not mention names, but there have been one or two MEPs through the years who worked on the basis that what was good for Europe was good for Ireland, while others take the opposite view, always pushing the Irish argument. What are Ms Doyle's views on that point?

Ms Doyle mentioned the veterinary directive, on which I will not dwell. On the broader issue of agriculture, a subject to which Ms Doyle is well attuned, I asked the Leader yesterday morning if the Seanad could engage in a broad series of debates on the future of agriculture and she responded favourably to my suggestion. At European level there are various talks, packages and plans, such as the Fischler proposals. What is the current state of European thinking on the future of Irish agriculture? Is it seen as a sector which will continue to employ fewer and fewer people? Is there a management issue? Is there an idea that European agriculture can continue to employ tens of thousands of people across the Continent? This is a particularly appropriate question in the context of the accession of the new member states, which have a strong agricultural base. Finally, what does Ms Doyle think of the EU constitution, the treaty and the current intervention by Mr. Prodi?