Ms Marian Harkin:

I am glad someone else raised that issue. I did not quite know how to get over it, but we remain friends and that is what matters.

Senator John Kelly talked about the importance of the link between committees and I absolutely agree. He also mentioned the habitats directive. What happened in that instance, largely, was that scientists - good people - sat in offices and drew lines on maps. I will refer to this issue when I speak about turf cutting.

There was a scientific basis for what was happening but who was thinking about the people who cut the turf and owned the land, and whose lives would be impacted? We see the problems we have now.

In respect of wind energy, there is no European legislation regulating distances from people's homes. Different member states have different policies but the Senator mentioned the two recent judgments by the court. The first concerned the environmental impact assessment directive where Ireland was found not to have applied Article 3 of the directive, which is very significant. This has been ongoing for a length of time. There was another judgment. I forget where the lady is from; she may be Austrian. It is still open but it definitely states that if a citizen has been disadvantaged by the fact that European legislation was not implemented the way it should have been, it is then open to that person to go to their national courts to seek redress. I have no doubt this will happen here. We need to take note of that when we are putting in place our legislation. It is a problem that may face the Government because of the judgment on the environmental impact assessment directive.

Senator Barrett, whom I thank for his kind words, spoke about problems with some European legislation. He said that we need scrutiny and checks and balances. We have already said that and we all agree with it. He spoke about all the work that needs to be done in that regard. He mentioned fluoridation and how we need a debate on a scientific rather than a political basis. I agree with him. We all have our own perspectives but we need to look at it from that perspective.

He mentioned the design of the euro. I did not agree with Margaret Thatcher's views on many issues. When she died, a number of articles were written about her and something I had not read before concerned her comments on the euro. I cannot remember the quote, which is a pity, because it was a very good one. However, she was correct when she pointed out the threats that existed and how it is not possible to have a loose common currency. I think Senator Kelly also spoke about that. Senator Barrett said there had not been enough discussion here at the time. Certainly, there was not enough informed discussion, which comes back to the point I made earlier. For this House to be involved, it needs resources and expertise. None of us can fly by the seat of our pants. If that discussion had taken place in an informed way, we might have made a different decision but we did not and we are where we are and live with the consequences of it, which are catastrophic. We have a currency that is not fit for purpose.

I agree that it is vital this House be retained. We have all spoken about that and I hope we are not talking just to ourselves and that somebody is listening. I think it was Senator Mooney or Senator MacSharry who said the Irish people are very intelligent. I would be very hopeful that when this question comes before the Irish people, they will balance it up and down. Yes, there is the sense that we have too many politicians and they are paid too much, and people question what they do. However, people look beyond that and look in more depth at our democracy and the reasons behind the various checks and balances that exist.

I thank Senator van Turnhout for her kind words on volunteering. I will not say any more but we know how important that is. She mentioned the multi-annual financial framework in the sense that the deal is done. The European Parliament has not accepted it but the truth is that the deal is done because to go back and ask those member states for more money would open up Pandora's box. Nobody is going to do that but the Senator is right when she says there are issues about the budget. I will give one example. If money is laid out for each year and some of it is not spent, it goes back to the member states at the end of that year. In the case of a Leader programme, all of the money would not be spent in the first two or three years but in the last three or four, one would spend much more so there is a shortfall. Every year, the EU does not have enough money because its systems do not work properly. We need more money and the budget is not fit for purpose from the perspective of amount involved, but my view is that the European Parliament will let that go but wants changes to ensure that the budget works effectively.

I agree with the Senator about social inclusion and protection. We are concentrating on jobs and there is nothing more important but we cannot lose sight of initiatives like the PROGRESS programme. We are not losing sight of it; we are fighting for it and keeping it there. The report produced ten years' ago could be written today and we need say no more.

Senator Reilly spoke about the Seanad and how, to some people, what is happening in the European Parliament hardly seems to matter. She mentioned the electromagnetic fields directive on MRI scanners. When the legislation in that regard was put in place ten years' ago, it was said that after ten years we would come back to it because there was a derogation. This concerns the health and safety of workers exposed to electromagnetic radiation. We had to look at what happened in the mean time and if we did not have that done and dusted, MRI might not go ahead because of concerns for the health and safety of workers. Most people do not know that and just expect the system to work, which is part of our role as well. Our role is to ensure that systems work.

I will give a simple example of how one communicates it. I visited two schools in County Clare last Friday and a school in north Donegal on Monday morning. I spoke to those primary schoolchildren about the medical devices directive. When I spoke to them about it, I spoke about how their granny's hip replacement must be fit for purpose and work well. I also told the students in Clare that medical device companies, such as Zimmer in Shannon, Covidien in Athlone and Abbott in Sligo and Longford, are located here because the regulations suit them and that, therefore, we must find the balance. I try to adapt whatever legislation is at hand to the level of the person to whom I am talking and explain how it impacts on him or her. If we had more of that, it would help. It is not that I have found a solution but it is one way that seems to work.

Did I put down any motions at the Constitutional Convention? No, I did not. I viewed that as an opportunity for ordinary citizens. Senator Colm Burke spoke about the globalisation fund and argued that people have a greater interest in Europe and that the Seanad needs to be more actively involved. He asked me how that could happen when the Commission comes forward with its proposals. We have the Presidency for six months, and this is a way to influence what happens. One can exert influence during the next six months because the Irish Presidency still has an impact. One can have a significant influence through MEPs because they are on the various committees. The Commission comes forward with its work programme but the MEPs make decisions about what happens there and through the Commission and Commissioners who have different portfolios. That would need to be structured and regulated. If the Seanad had as a core role some of the issues about which we spoke earlier, it could do that.

Senator Mullins spoke about the retention of the Seanad and turf cutting. He asked the most difficult question I could have been asked here today, namely, whether there is any chance of the EU agreeing to change boundaries to allow people to cut turf on bogs where there are no alternatives. The Commission has said it is considering the issue in the round. There may be some possibility of changing some boundaries and including new areas that scientifically would be more appropriate to include. It will be very difficult. As I have said previously, we did it badly in the first place and are now reaping the whirlwind. Having said that, people deserve to expect that we would do everything we can to ensure those boundaries are changed. There is a considerable amount of goodwill out there and people are willing to work. I know Senator Kelly has been very much involved in this. It is a question of trying to work with people. Unfortunately, neither we nor the Government have a free hand. We are constantly looking over our shoulders at the Commission. It is not a closed door but it is open only a chink.

The Senator also asked me about my greatest achievement. I have two, one of which is the globalisation fund in the sense of ensuring that construction workers here benefited from it because we all like to be able to deliver a few bob. None of us ever managed that on our own but with the help of others, we can. The second achievement is legislative change.

I have had success in a few areas for what I call the small person, whether the small company or the individual, changing a little bit of legislation and influencing its implementation. That is what we all want to do, if we can manage a little bit of that. I do not perform miracles or move mountains. I take one little step at a time. Unless one is the Minister for Finance one does not manage more than that and even the Minister for Finance must answer to other people.

Senator Leyden asked whether we could veto the loss of a seat. He is not here at the moment. I would love to say we could but can we? We signed the Lisbon treaty and this was part of the deal we signed up to. I do not want to see the west of Ireland lose a seat but I have heard that somebody else might block it. I know our Government will not. At least I have been told it will not. He also spoke about the yellow card. That is a power the Oireachtas has, which, if it had the resources and expertise could be used widely.

The Senator also mentioned eel fishing. I do not know why that ban happened. Northern Ireland and France did not ban it but we did. I do not think the science was good enough. There certainly is a problem with the eel population but there was not sufficient evidence to ban the fishing. I have already dealt with the question of wind turbines.

In response to Senator Mooney, I cannot deal with the speech made by President Higgins except to say that it was well-received in the Parliament. I was sitting in the middle and could see that some parts of the House clapped more than others. I could certainly see that it was not a universal applause but it was a warm reception. He raised issues that need to be raised. The thinking at European level has been too much informed by the hawks I spoke of earlier, those who have power. He raised that issue in a philosophical way. If I was raising those issues I would annoy the hell out of somebody but he managed to raise them in a way that makes people think rather than makes them angry. That was important. I am glad he raised them and they needed to be raised.

The Senator also mentioned fracking which is a local issue because I hear in Clare that the geology will not support it but there is no doubt that there is shale oil in Leitrim and west Cavan. The Commissioner for the Environment, Janez Potočnik, has said that there are gaps in EU legislation. He is looking at that. There is no Europe-wide legislation. There will be no European policy because some member states and some regions have banned it. The Senator said he did not want my view so I will not give it but it is in the public domain and people know what it is.