Ms Emer Costello, MEP:

We work in committee and with each other. Ms Marian Harkin, MEP is my shadow on the food report. We work in co-operation and table amendments, after which a proposal is taken to Council.

An issue I raised in my report was the requirement of co-funding for food whereby 85% is financed with co-funding of 15%. My report proposes withdrawing this requirement on the basis that the charities involved in the programme leverage so much additional funding themselves from the work they do. They are able to target various areas. I visited Crosscare and saw its food bank. I met Healthy Food for All. Duncan Stewart did an "Eco Eye" programme on food waste. The programme in which we are involved will tie in with many policies on food waste. A huge amount can be achieved.

We are not out of the woods because there is a blocking minority with regard to the programme. This goes back to the idea of the social pact and how it works, which relates to the questions asked by Senators Zappone and Hayden. The Europe I believe in is one which is socially cohesive. The Single Market is not an end in itself; it is there to serve the people of the European Union. We cannot have a truly proper Single Market unless we have social cohesion. I have been debating this in the European Parliament with members from other member states who do not believe it is the business of the European Union to give food aid to European citizens. I do not believe this. We must reach out to those on the margins.

It is not just a question of giving out charity and this is the problem we had with regard to most deprived persons when only intervention stocks were used. I know people who were grossly insulted to receive cheese stamped as being donated from the European Union. I met organisations who asked how they can give such food parcels to people because their children would open the fridge and see they have intervention cheese. It is terrible. We want the programme to follow a socially inclusive model whereby we do not just give food aid but use it as a way to bring people in and ensure social inclusion measures are taken so people are able to climb to the next rung on the ladder by being able to participate in European Social Fund, ESF, job incentive programmes. The ESF will not look after people at that stage. The food programme is fundamental to what the European Union is about and social cohesion.

Senator Barrett asked whether a common currency is possible and sustainable and whether Greece should be at the same level as Germany. I do not agree with his premise and I do not believe if Greece is cut free from the euro it will somehow save Greece from any more problems than are being experienced at present. The best thing we can do is show solidarity with Greece.

As we have done to date, we must pull out all of the stops to ensure that it stays within the eurozone and support it from within the EU. We must not cast it out or other countries that experience difficulties will go out of the Union. That is not what European solidarity is about.

The Senator's position is advocated by my European Parliament colleague, Mr. Nigel Farage, MEP, with whose remarks on this matter I take major issue. The Senator is not starting at the right place. Greece is facing serious problems. Indeed, its youth unemployment rate is almost 60%. We are also facing serious economic issues, but the stories from Greece are heart-breaking when my colleagues and I discuss it alongside the Spanish and Portuguese situations.

One of my Portuguese colleagues told me of a recent opinion poll. Let us remember that Portugal is a new and emerging democracy, one that has come out of dictatorship within living memory. In the opinion poll, people claimed that they were not disillusioned with politics, their politicians or their Parliament, even though they were. What they were most disillusioned with was democracy. The army stated that it did not overthrow the generals for this situation. That democracy is being undermined is serious.

For this reason, Europe must be seen as part of the solution. The EU can only do so by showing solidarity and promoting social cohesion through the development of the types of idea about which I have spoken today. We have various programmes, for example, the Structural Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Social Fund, ESF, and the aid for the most deprived, but we also need a social agenda. The EU is correct in that we need financial rules and we must work within a stable economic framework, but we must also work towards social cohesion and solidarity. We cannot advance the Single Market unless we have a level playing field for all. Ireland has benefited considerably from many of the programmes in question. We can continue to play a role in them.

Senator Reilly asked how Ireland could hold itself up as an example of good practice and hold the Presidency, given its figures. Senator Leyden will bear out my next point. We had an interesting interparliamentary discussion on the European semester two or three weeks ago at which there was a good interaction between national parliaments and the European Parliament regarding the future of Europe. This is how it should be.

There are high expectations of the Irish Presidency. So far, it has gained a reputation for being efficient and business-like and for getting the job done. It is expected that we will be able to deliver on a number of the dossiers currently on the table. When we reach June 2013, a period of electioneering will begin, as the next European elections will be held in June 2014. There will also be a new European Commission. It is important that the Irish Presidency gets the job done before the last year begins. As parliamentarians, Senators understand how the process works. Our Presidency is working towards this aim. The Irish Presidency is taking a leading role.

Senator Quinn asked about trade with the US. When I met the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, he explained that the free trade agreement with the US was one of his key priorities for the period. Much needs to be negotiated. The European Parliament will play a strong role in the oversight of a free trade agreement with any country.

A number of other issues were raised. A question was asked on whether we could establish a humanitarian aid corps to work in the developing world. A few weeks ago, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs delivered an opinion on such a proposal for the Union. I will send the Senator the report.

Senator Quinn asked whether I believed that the late payments directive would impact negatively on Irish businesses. My experience is that Irish small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, are seeking the application of the late payments directive. It will apply a penalty or interest to companies that do not pay on time. In these straitened times, it is important that struggling SMEs receive their money. Many of the representations that I have received have been for the directive's implementation. I will investigate into whether other issues obtain.

Last week, the European Parliament discussed SMEs and the extra ¤10 billion from the European Investment Bank, EIB. The bank should make money available to SMEs and will do so under a programme from 2014.

The language barrier is an issue that is close to my heart. I worked for ten years in Léargas, which manages many of the EU-funded educational programmes in Ireland. I was responsible for developing language projects with schools, sending language assistants abroad and bringing language assistants to Ireland. It was a rewarding programme. Many of the schools and teachers involved found it useful.

Surprisingly, there are many linguists in Ireland. The problem is that, in many ways, English is the lingua franca. Often, people must speak English at meetings even where no translation is available. I speak French, which is an advantage, but holding a conversation in French can be difficult because people prefer to speak English. One must work with that preference. My French was useful in my negotiations with many of the French NGOs that I visited, for example, Restos de Coeur, which I visited in Strasbourg. I was able to speak to many people because I had the language. Languages are important. For this reason, I will support the new Erasmus for All programme or whatever it is called. I am not dying about the name. Its budget needs to be fit for purpose. I would hate this year's experience to be repeated, as we ran out of money for national agencies and students before we resolved the situation. I am glad that the European Parliament played a strong role in that resolution.

I have covered most of the issues raised by Senators. I went around the House thematically. Senator Zappone asked whether we could ensure the social pact would be socially binding. We must put the same rules in place for social legislation that we do for economic legislation. I welcome the fact that the social investment pact launched by Commissioner Andor last week is the start of that process. I hope that the Council can develop the process by June.

The final question was on a matter dear to my heart, namely, the reduction in the number of seats. The proposal on the table is that Ireland would lose one seat at the next European elections. Although the proposed reduction is a result of Croatia joining the EU, it is also a result of the Treaty of Lisbon, under which there can only be 751 seats in the European Parliament. Croatia will have 12 seats when it joins in June, but it will automatically lose one as well.

In my view, Croatia and Ireland are not being treated fairly under this proposal. The principle of "digressive proportionality" is to ensure that smaller states retain a larger number of seats in order that they can actively participate. In future, Ireland will have 11 seats, which equates to one MEP per 417,000 people while Finland and Slovakia will have 13 MEPs, which equates, respectively, to one MEP per 413,000 and 415,000 people. There is very little difference between Finland and Slovakia. I believe the number of seats allocated to Ireland is disproportionate. There will be 751 MEPs in the European Parliament. The report commissioned states that Germany should lose three seats, because up to now it has been overly represented, and that no other country should lose more than one, with which I agree. In my view, Ireland should not lose a seat. Ireland and Croatia both have a population of 4.5 million people. Despite massive emigration, Ireland has one of the fastest growing populations. As such, it should retain all its seats. I proposed that Italy and Austria should lose seats. While Austria will lose one seat, Sweden rather than Ireland will benefit.

The matter will go before the European Parliament in March and will be voted on there. As the report was voted on at the Constitutional Affairs Committee, it is unlikely that decision will be overturned. I believe it is not in Ireland's interests to have fewer MEPs. Irish MEPs serve on a large number of committees. Even with 12 MEPs and the best will in the world every committee is not attended by an Irish MEP. I have given the Seanad a snapshot of my work on the Employment and Social Affairs Committee. This level of work is duplicated by the 30 plus other committees. We have only 12 MEPs to cover all committees. To be at the heart of Europe requires us to be at the heart of decision-making. We should be involved in committees and making the decisions. As I said, the matter will soon go before the European Parliament. As a Council member, Ireland, like all other Council members, will have a veto on it. I understand that the Council proposes to accept the Parliament's recommendation. We will probably be left with 11 seats, following which there will be a rush to do a constituency revision. It is unlikely there will be any two-seat constituencies. I envisage we will be reduced to three-seat constituencies, which is unfortunate. While I will continue to oppose this, once the deal is done we will have to move on.

It is important to say also that quantity is not always enough. We must have quality MEPs.