Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP:

I thank Members for their contributions which I found very interesting. I also thank them for their very warm welcome. Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú was particularly kind to me, which I very much appreciate. I agree with what he said about the 1916 Proclamation and that we should remind ourselves about it more. I know he has had a lifelong interest in the Irish language. I, too, have a great love of it. All of my children were educated through Irish and my schoolgoing grandchild is also attending a gaelscoil. That opportunity would not have been available had we not joined the European Union. That resulted in many people deciding that they wanted to save the language. It is not just a matter for Gaeltacht areas. There is a huge demand for all-Irish primary and secondary school places, which demand was created when people saw the country being part of the European Union. The European Union is not about assimilation but about integration, whereby Catholics, Protestants, Germans, non-believers, people of different sexual orientation and backgrounds can learn to live together in peace and stability.

I was asked whether I was disappointed with the UK reference to holding a referendum on European Union membership. It is very difficult to interfere with the rights of another member state and I agree with Senator Sean D. Barrett that we should listen to what Mr. Cameron has said. I do not think he has said anything that was not anticipated, but there are very deep issues involved that may not have been fully thought out. There is a tendency in some quarters in politics to look at what the focus groups are saying and then repeat it, but politics is meant to be about more than this. What will happen, for example, if the British do get themselves to a position where a referendum will be held? As we all know, the result in a referendum can go either way. I believe it was Charles de Gaulle who said the terrible thing about referendums was that people never answered the question asked. One asks a question on a specific issue and they say they do not like the Government and so forth. That is the difficulty. A referendum is not a perfect instrument.

I do not know what effect such a referendum would have on the future of Scotland or Northern Ireland, for example. In the context of a future Border poll in Northern Ireland, if the United Kingdom was outside the European Union, would voters in Northern Ireland decide they would rather be in the Republic of Ireland and inside the European Union rather than outside? A British citizen living in Ireland e-mailed me yesterday to say he was British but wanted to keep his EU citizenship and passport. He asked me to raise with the Irish Government the possibility of fast-tracking Irish citizenship applications from British citizens living here. That demonstrates the fear being created unnecessarily in this regard.

I have listened to what Mr. Cameron said last night and understand why he said it. He is under a lot of pressure, not just from the UK Independence Party, UKIP, but also from his own backbenchers. However, I also heard interviews with passengers travelling on the Eurostar, business people and others, who were shocked at the idea that there would be a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. I know from discussions I have had with British civil servants that they are fearful of where this will take them. Having said all that, Britain is a democracy and its people must decide for themselves. I mention in passing that the Lisbon treaty specifically allows for a member state to leave, if it so wishes, but I hope Britain will not leave. It is not only that we export a lot to it. If memory serves me, we import more from it than from Latin America and Japan added together. It is a two-way relationship. There are social ties and special relations between our two countries, about which the Taoiseach and Mr. Cameron spoke recently.

Senators asked if the Irish Presidency could promote greater understanding on this question and I believe it could. Ireland is one of the countries in Europe that understands Britain best because of our exposure to the British media and our close ties with our neighbour. When one sees the British MEPs in action, particularly those from the mainstream parties, it becomes clear that they are some of the best contributors in the European Parliament. Britain has a great tradition of public service and excellent public administration. I would prefer if they took a leading role in the European Union, alongside the bigger member states, instead of being so recalcitrant.

I thank Senator Michael Mullins for his comments. It seems strange now and when I mention it to my children, they think I am talking about ancient history, but I remember the five-year waiting lists for a telephone here. I also remember that if one had a sick child, for example, one had to get a ministerial directive in order to have a telephone installed in one's house. That is the way it was, not in ancient times but the 1980s. I had the signatures of 1,000 people in the parish of Crumlin alone who were waiting for a telephone. The best road in the country was the one running from Newlands Cross to Naas. The country has changed dramatically since. People are now much more mobile than in the past, something on which we need to reflect. Also, as the Senator said, because of our commitment to the European Union, the level of foreign direct investment here increased by 30% in 2011, the last full year for which we have statistics. That was the second highest increase in foreign direct investment in the European Union after the Netherlands.

The Senator asked where we would be in 20 years time, a very interesting question. Within a generation, the population of the world will have increased by 2 billion, 90% of whom will have been born in what is now the developing world. As things stand, the European Union has 9% of the world's population but accounts for somewhere between one quarter and one fifth of the world's GDP. If memory serves, it is nearer to one quarter than one fifth. Within the timescale mentioned by the Senator, Europe will only have 6% of the world's population. Population growth is occurring in the east and south. People in these countries have mobile phones and computers and their children know how to use them better than I do. I hope I will not bring criticism down on my head for saying this, but it is very doubtful, for example, that Britain and France will continue to be entitled to a seat on the UN Security Council in such circumstances.

It is not just a question of what we want within the European Union but also of what role the Union will play in the world and how we will look out for its interests.

I recently read some interesting research that was circulated by the European People's Party. We all know about the future of Brazil, India, China and Russia - China will continue to be powerful - but we might not have noticed some countries that are coming up, such as Nigeria and Colombia. While they might not be on our radar now, research shows they might be very powerful in the world of the future if they get their acts together. Europe cannot afford to speak with 27 or 30 different voices. I will come back to the issue of democracy, which is relevant in this context, when I respond to Senator Barrett's comments.

I thank Senator Mary Ann O'Brien for her welcome. It is true that many laws are coming through the EU. Many of them are replacing existing laws. Many of them are being introduced because national governments or parliaments have asked for them. Some laws start off in national parliaments, perhaps as questions to Ministers, before making their way through. There is a process of scrutiny in all of this. I have served as Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the former Oireachtas Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny. I understand that the Seanad intends to take a better role in the area of scrutiny. That is really important. It is very dry work. If we did not have our Judiciary, we would be living in a jungle and the law would amount to no more than the survival of the fittest. The only judges one reads about in the newspapers every day are those who deal with murders, serious crimes and things of that kind. All of the other judges are doing vitally important work as well. The same has to be said of Deputies, Senators and MEPs. Their work might not be covered by the media, but that is not the measure of their success. The role of a parliament is to scrutinise these things. The Upper House of the Oireachtas could play a particular role in this regard. I welcome the Seanad's plans to expand its role in this area. I think it would be pushing an open door as far as co-operation from Europe is concerned.

I was also asked about fisheries. As I mentioned earlier, the Irish economy is very diversified now. One of the things we sacrificed was our fisheries. Approximately a year ago, I attended an interesting seminar on where our future wealth will come from. It will not come from fisheries as much as it will come from beneath the sea. The maritime sector is a crucial part of our long-term future. All sorts of wealth can be found beneath the sea. We have not given away our rights in that regard. We need to safeguard them. My colleague, Pat the Cope Gallagher, is involved in negotiating the fisheries agreement at present.

I was also asked about the labelling of alcohol. I am glad that Deputy Martin was mentioned. Two reports recommended a smoking ban. One of them was written by the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and I wrote the other one. We never got any credit for it until someone found themselves in a tight corner and tried to blame the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and me. I agree fully with the ban. My family has been devastated by cancer. I also agree with what was said about the labelling of alcohol. These issues are being examined. The European Parliament is being vigilant about genetically modified food.

I would like to mention in passing how the legislative process works in the European Parliament. We do not have the right to introduce Bills in the way that Senators and Deputies do. The Council of Ministers does not have that right either. The sole right to introduce legislation lies with the European Commission. The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers can ask the Commission to introduce legislation, just as the Oireachtas does. When legislation is introduced, it is decided on jointly by the Parliament and by the Council. Just as the Council meets in various formats, such as the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council, the Parliament has more than 20 committees. The Commission's reports go to those committees. A member of each committee is appointed as rapporteur, using the d'Hondt system. The biggest group gets the most reports, and the second biggest group gets the second most reports, etc. If one is the rapporteur, one is put in charge of that file. A shadow rapporteur is also appointed. What happens in the European Parliament is different from the adversarial British system that we inherited.

Proinsias de Rossa put it very well when he said that in the Dáil, people in opposition get up every day wondering how they can wrong-foot the Government and people in government get up every day wondering how they can prevent themselves from being wrong-footed by the Opposition. We do not have the same system in Europe. Nobody has a majority in the European Parliament. There is no government in the European Parliament. We have to reach agreement. When one gets out of bed in the morning, one has to think about how to reach agreement with the other parties. That is how we make legislation. It is very imperfect. The 500 million people who live between Malta and Finland and between Ireland and Poland are very diverse. The miracle of the system is that it actually works.

The bank sovereign debt issue was one of the matters mentioned by Senator Higgins. The European Council, in particular, is exercised about this issue. Proposals will come forward as part of a new supervision mechanism for banks. I do not think the EU will end up supervising every bank. Some sort of matrix will probably be used whereby the European Central Bank will have a role if certain criteria apply and it will be a matter for the national legislator if those criteria do not apply. When that comes, it is proposed that the ESM will be open to dealing with the recapitalisation of banks. That is not finalised yet. I cannot force anybody to share my personal view on this matter, which is that I do not see how that cannot be made available to us if it is made available to some banks. If we are comparing debt-to-GDP ratios across Europe on the same basis, we cannot have something on the balance sheet of Ireland's national accounts that is not on the balance sheet of other national accounts. One has to compare like with like. My understanding is that if we get this approval, which I am optimistic we will get, the Government might never draw it down. If we have it, the markets will probably say "they can get this money, so we will invest in those banks ourselves because we can still get a good rate". I think that will be the important part of it.

The Senator also asked whether there is light at the end of the tunnel. Not only do I think there is light at the end of the tunnel, but I also think our future is extremely bright. The last question I asked the president of the European Central Bank, Mr. Draghi, at the last meeting of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee before Christmas was whether he shared the view of the German finance Minister, Dr. Schäuble, and a British banker who was speaking on behalf of what is called the Lisbon Council, which was that as recovery comes, the West will do well and Europe will be the strongest part of the West. Mr. Draghi, who as a central banker is not particularly known for making exuberant statements, said he absolutely agreed with that view. I think we are putting in the foundations for a sustainable recovery in the future. I heard Mr. Bill Gates say yesterday that Ireland and Europe are getting their act together.

I was also asked about development aid. This is not all selfless stuff. It is not all about the fact that 28,000 children are dying every day, but it is to do with that fact. At the end of the Second World War, this country had an infant mortality rate of approximately 48 per 1,000. That might have been pretty typical of poorer countries across Europe at the time. I led the European Parliament team that attended last year's UN review of the millennium development goals. I was part of a group of people from many countries. As we sat down, the Assistant Secretary General of the World Health Organization mentioned in a matter-of-fact manner that there is a range of mortality rates for children, the lowest being in Ireland and the highest being in some other country. I cannot remember what country it was. As I said earlier, the current rate is 26,000 children per day. Although it is a horrible and horrific figure, at least it represents a reduction on the previous level of 38,000 per day. An additional 13,000 children are living every day because we are working with people in their countries to assist them, as opposed to telling them what to do. The current rate is 68 per 1,000, which is not that far beyond the rate in this country at the end of the Second World War. One can see how we can achieve these goals. It is not all selfless and humanitarian. The future is going to be in some of these countries. We have to look to that. When I sat beside the Rwandan economic affairs Minister at a meeting in Brussels, she asked me throughout the meal how the financial services sector operates in Ireland because that country has ambitions in the same sector. The future is there. These countries can be our trading partners. We will not have massive migration if we deal with it humanely, properly and wisely.

I thank Senators Barrett and Ó Murchú for their kind words about my late brother. I noted the things that Senator Barrett agreed with me about. I would like to agree with him that the euro was badly designed.

That is accepted in the European Union. However, in 1989, when the Berlin Wall suddenly came down, we were left in a situation in which Germany wanted reunification whereas France, in particular, and Britain - perhaps more sceptically - were very fearful of a united Germany in Europe. Would Europe become a Germanic Europe or could we make Germany a European Germany? That is why, for political reasons, they decided to go ahead with the euro, even though we had not put in the proper foundations. We are now putting in those foundations and I believe those foundations are going in very well.

In regard to increased accountability, the Senator has put his finger right on the button. This is something that is exercising not only Senators but also MEPs and, in particular, the President of the European Council, Mr. Van Rompuy. He has published a document which states that because we are doing all of this, we must have greater parliamentary accountability, not just to the European Parliament but to national parliaments. He states that what is done at a national level must be accounted for to national parliaments and what is done at European level must be accounted for to the European Parliament. He goes further, however, and points out there are provisions in the Lisbon treaty for the European Parliament and national parliaments together to oversee some issues.

In passing, I will come back to the issue of development aid. The European Commission produced a report stating that if there were greater coherence between what is spent nationally and what is spent Europe-wide on development aid, the saving would be an extra ¤6 billion per year. In the lifetime of a parliament, that is ¤30 billion. The House will know what we could do with that money. Why are not we not doing that? We are not doing it because national governments are holding onto it. If we could get national parliaments and the European Parliament working together, we could put the pressure on national governments to do more. I believe there is a case for this. We are exercised about how we can do this more easily.

It is true that if we do not have the exchange rate capacity to devalue, we have structural problems. I do not know where one would draw the line on that. Northern Ireland is a poorer place than London, yet it uses the same currency. We have done the unthinkable - we have made ourselves more competitive. When we look at Greece, it has some problems which it brought upon itself and it has problems of confidence because some of the figures it generated did not stand up to scrutiny. However, real progress is being made in Greece and the Greeks are taking very difficult decisions. It will probably be easier after the German election in September for a more sympathetic view to be taken of the southern economies.

We must bear in mind that the European Union does not have its own source of taxation. All of this comes from national taxpayers. Although Ireland has been in the EU since 1973, we are not yet a net contributor to the budget, so we cannot always rely on others to put their hands in their pockets. I believe there is a determination that Greece will not be allowed to exit and whatever it takes will be done. However, some of that may happen later in the year rather than in the earlier part of the year.