Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Nessa Childers, MEP, to the House. She has been the MEP for the East constituency since 2009. I wish her every success in her role. She has 20 minutes in which to address the Seanad.

Ms Nessa Childers:

I am thankful for the opportunity to address the Seanad today. I will speak about EU public health policy, referring to various items of legislation we have worked on over the past four years. I will argue that we need a reformed, but not abolished, Seanad. The Seanad should have a role in scrutinising and debating EU policy as it goes through committee stages in the European Parliament and the Council of Europe.

I will first address the work of the Parliament. My first impression of being an Irish MEP was that it was not unlike living on Pluto, far away from but circling around the sun - the sun in this case being the Irish political system, where it appears many Deputies and Senators are blissfully unaware of or unconcerned about the work of the European Parliament. This is worrying, as the European Parliament now has extensive legislative, budgetary and supervisory powers. With regard to virtually all EU policy issues, it is an equal co-legislator with national governments. When I am out and about in the constituency, however, I realise people are very aware of the role of the European Parliament and want to engage with me and discuss our work.

Let me put all this in a practical light. I am a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, ENVI, and a substitute member of the Committee on Culture and Education. With a background of more than 20 years as a mental health professional, I have naturally focused a lot on public health issues. Since 2009, I have been co-chair of the European Parliament's mental health, well-being and brain disorder interest group, which brings together MEPs, Commission officials, academics and patient groups to work together on mental health issues such as depression, suicide and alcoholism. Since early 2012, I have been co-chair of the European Parliament's group MEPs Against Cancer. This involves MEPs, patients and industry groups examining the way in which the European Union can tackle issues such as breast, lung, prostate and cervical cancers. These interest groups represent a valuable use of our time. We organise round-table discussions that are held in an unpressurised environment and with plenty of time for people to debate current issues. This helps to inform us and educate us in our decision-making.

As the Seanad is aware, the European Parliament's legislative work is structured around the committee system, in which the emphasis is on achieving compromise and agreement. The committee system is interesting for Irish parliamentarians as it allows individual MEPs to have actual influence in shaping new legislation. For example, on the environment committee, I have helped to shape EU policy on many topics, such as Alzheimer's disease, disabilities, obesity, HIV–AIDS and food labelling. In the European Parliament, any MEP can submit legislative amendments. Once one wins support for them, they may be passed in plenary session. If the Parliament then fights for those amendments, they can become law for over 500 million EU citizens. I have had the pleasure of having my amendments to the 2012 food labelling regulation become EU law, for example.

It is important to understand, for all kinds of reasons, that MEPs exercise their mandate independently. They cannot be bound by any instructions or receive a binding mandate. This, in effect, means there can be no national party whip for MEPs as regards voting on European legislation. As MEPs do not vote in the Oireachtas, there is no whip for us in the national parliament either. The reason for an independent mandate is quite important. It is to ensure we are not bound by possible national party instructions to follow solely national interests. MEPs are elected to represent their constituents directly in the European Parliament and they vote on European legislation that affects the Union as a whole.

MEPs organise into political groups that reflect their political philosophies. I am a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats and the Irish Labour Party while representing the interests of my constituents. At present, I have a voting record of 90% with my political group. Unfortunately, the positions adopted are not always consistent with those of the Irish Government, including those of both Fine Gael and Labour Party members. This is the case generally in the European Parliament. The cohesion of the groups is notable despite the absence of a whip system. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats has voting cohesion among its members of approximately 90%.

That is interesting and we should think about the implications of the absence of the whip system.

In 2012, I was a co-author of new EU legislation on the pricing system for medicines in Europe, the transparency in medicines pricing directive. That will affect Irish patients in terms of how and at what price they can access vital medicines. Hopefully, the legislation will be concluded next October. It will also affect how quickly generic medicines enter the market. Other issues I work on are the medical devices directive and clinical trials regulation. A particular interest for me at present is the revision of the tobacco products directive. I believe this legislation is critical and I am anxious that the strongest possible tobacco control is agreed. Personally, I would have it banned if possible. With non-governmental organisations and patient groups in Brussels I have campaigned and pressed for strong anti-tobacco legislation, and the European Commission finally proposed this long-awaited directive before Christmas. A total of 700,000 people die prematurely in the European Union due to tobacco-related causes, yet across Europe teenagers start smoking at a very early age. Tobacco puts a heavy burden on governments and society generally. Non-smokers also pay for the costs of smoking, primarily in the form of higher health insurance and medical costs related to second-hand smoke, leading to higher taxes and higher prices for health care products and services.

The new legislation seeks to ensure that tobacco products look and taste like tobacco. The draft directive bans all characterising flavourings, as they are termed. Examples of these include chocolate, fruit flavours and menthol. It also deals with labelling and packaging, with picture and text warnings to cover 75% of all cigarette and roll-your-own packets. Packaging is one of the last places in which the tobacco industry can market its products. This marketing must be prevented and curtailed as much as possible. Although the directive is widely welcomed, MEPs and member states must be vigilant against the massive negative industry lobbying campaign, which will now move out of the shadows and try to delay, block and defeat this legislation. We know the industry lobbied specifically on tax and intellectual property grounds against the new EU law.

I will speak a little about my work on lobbying and transparency, particularly with regard to this directive. Lobbying is reasonable and legal. It contributes to good legislative decision making, but only when it is fully transparent. For that reason I was disappointed to learn that two Government Departments did not disclose meetings with the tobacco industry, breaking the terms of the World Health Organisation, WHO, treaty of which Ireland is a signatory. Working together with Deputy Kevin Humphreys, we discovered that officials working for the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, met with the tobacco industry on a number of occasions last year without the transparency required under the world tobacco treaty ratified by Ireland in 2004. They have met, for example, with John Player and Philip Morris International, and Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation officials have met with Japan Tobacco International. These meetings happened despite a warning last May from the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly, to his Cabinet colleagues of their obligations under the WHO treaty. We need to know more about how and when lobbying of governments has occurred.

I have worked on these issues from very early in my term in Brussels. We are working towards a transparent system. Brussels is the lobbying capital of the world, apart from Washington DC. There are possibly 22,000 lobbyists in Brussels alone. We need a culture of responsibility and legislative efforts to monitor the lobbying sector. Brussels is moving in the right direction. There is a register of lobbyists, but it is not mandatory. The two biggest Irish lobbyists, the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation, IBEC, for example, have still not registered. Many public representatives, myself included, publicly declare when we have met with industry representatives and my diary includes all meetings with NGOs, industry representatives and community groups. My website provides great detail about my pay, expenses, staff and other aspects of my political life which the public might like to know. There must be more transparency about lobbying in Ireland. I am pleased that the register of lobbyists legislation will be published by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, very soon. It is a good start.

I will now discuss my thoughts on the Seanad with regard to EU legislation. I would like to see a strong role for a reformed Seanad in debating the scope and depth of EU policy, with Irish MEPs playing an equal part in those discussions and reflecting the passage of legislation through the institutions of the EU and the co-decision-making process. The Lisbon treaty facilitates this function of oversight and it should feature strongly in a reformed Seanad. Senators could communicate legislation of interest to councillors and work with the new regional authorities. They could offer this as a service to local elected representatives, who usually have to explain and deal with the effects of EU law being implemented in their local areas. MEPs could also attend the relevant Dáil committees where EU legislation can be discussed. MEPs from some other countries have that right. This is important, as parliamentarians need to ask Ministers what their stance is in advance of voting on new laws when they sit on the Council of the European Union. New roles and responsibilities would require a strong secretariat to make them worthwhile.

In the current economic situation any argument for increasing the Seanad budget would be difficult to make, but one of the dangers of the economic recession and the austerity agenda is that confidence in democracy is damaged. This has been identified by the European Parliament, which strongly cautions against excessive cuts. In Ireland, the most vulnerable and the lower paid carry the bulk of the cutbacks. We need to ask why this is happening. We must also examine how we can stop democracy from being damaged. How often have we seen critical decisions forced through both Houses, without proper debate, under the excuse of emergency or time constraints? To have real impact, actions on lobbying and Seanad reform require greater changes in how we make decisions in this country. The secretive and closed budget-making system, for example, does a disservice to the country and is a disservice to politicians. Government Deputies and Senators are expected to defend a budget with only a few hours' notice of the content and the figures. Taking one for the team rather than questioning poor policy is viewed as a badge of honour and deemed worthy of reward. Opposition Deputies and Senators have no opportunity to have an input into the process. We need long-term budgeting that is agreed in open session through a committee system that allows the full involvement of elected representatives and public scrutiny. Unfortunately, transparency in decision making is getting more opaque. The whip and guillotine silence Deputies and Senators on both sides of the Houses and push through legislation without oversight. We need reform or we will continue to face unequal, unfair and often poorly thought out policies. Due to the new EU governance legislation, the Irish budget will become more transparent. It will be open to and peer reviewed by our neighbours. It is a pity some of the budgets of the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, were not peer reviewed, or indeed many other budgets.

I will not speak any further but will just remind Senators about the living on Pluto metaphor. In many respects, Brussels is the real sun around which member states are increasingly rotating. Some of that is problematic for Ireland because of the influence of troikas which are not accountable to anybody, including the European Parliament. We must look at where we are placed in that solar system of public representation. It has always been my opinion that the Seanad should not be abolished. There are great dangers in that. However, I believe it will happen, unfortunately.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I offer a warm welcome to Ms Nessa Childers on behalf of the Fianna Fáil side of the House. I admire her recent stand in respect of the policies of this country. She deserves great support. She is a chip off the old block. I had the honour of supporting her father's campaign for election as President of Ireland and I had the honour of launching a stamp down on the docks with her mother when I was a Minister of State. It was in honour of the Asgard and the great work that her grandfather and grandmother did for the country.

Ms Childers comes from a great tradition and is continuing on that vein in the European Parliament. I know from being in Brussels over the years that since her election to the European Parliament in 2009 - she is in her fourth year - she has worked with the advantage of having such a distinctive name and reputation. These are a help in meeting other parliamentarians from throughout the world who would know of her background. She has shown her independent spirit on particular issues and I am most impressed by what she has outlined today.

One specific area in this regard is the question of the tobacco industry. The lobbying that is going on is sinister. She remarked that two senior Ministers have been lobbied and their officials have met representatives of Philip Morris, John Player and Japan Tobacco. I am interested in the background to the booklet, The illicit tobacco trade review 2012, issued by a certain organisation. I am unsure whether those involved are lobbyists; they do not state who they are. The organisation appears to be called JTI. It has a regulatory affairs adviser and it is a limited liability company registered in Dublin, Ireland with offices at Arthur Cox buildings, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2. The director is John Freda. I am unsure whether they are lobbyists or a front for the tobacco industry. In recent weeks the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, who has expressed his opposition to smoking, has stated that he wishes to bring about a situation whereby there would be at least a €1 charge on each cigarette. This matter was highlighted by Senators Mary White and David Norris and others. From my recollection the relevant Bill was to allow for under-cost selling of tobacco and cigarettes. It is supposed to be acting on a directive of the European Union. We have practically no scrutiny of the situation here.

I was a member of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny. We laid out various recommendations in a report. The committee recommended as an initial measure that the Dáil and Seanad should each allocate at least one sitting day per month to EU matters. Among the matters to be considered in plenary session were the reports of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny on important draft EU laws, the ongoing work of the Joint Committee on European Affairs and the implementation of the Lisbon treaty, which is now in place. The Lisbon treaty clearly indicated the powers of both Parliaments. I do not believe there has been any referral under the yellow card system from either House, the Dáil or the Seanad, to Europe on legislation or directives. I have examined the matter. The Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, was a member of that committee and was in favour of this House scrutinising these matters, as was the Leader of the House, Deputy Maurice Cummins. They put a good deal of work into this.

Ms Childers has certain responsibilities as an MEP to scrutinise those directives. I wish her well for re-election. There was a directive in respect of fishing in eel fisheries which has been banned for 99 years.

It is most unsatisfactory that we voted for and supported the admission of Croatia to the European Union only to find that as a result we are possibly going down from 12 to 11 seats in the next European Parliament. Not knowing the constituencies at this stage, a little over one year from the next election, is grossly unfair to Ms Childers as a member of the European Parliament. The more countries that are admitted to the European Union, the greater the problem. We will end up with six seats for Ireland if we do not start to increase the number of seats in the Parliament. That is the inevitable solution. No country should lose as a result of bringing in another country. If that is the case, if Turkey comes in to the European Union Ireland might as well forget about having membership at all. We would be reduced to six members, the same as Malta. We need numbers in the European Parliament and I realise Ms Childers works with her colleagues in this regard. It is a vast complex and she needs all the back-up she can get. I wish her well as a candidate in the next election and if she runs as an Independent socialist I am confident she will be re-elected. I believe she has made the right move at this point.

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Childers is very welcome to the Seanad. I agree with her views on Seanad reform and I have been arguing the same case for the past two years. I will refer to Europe's role in the area of medicine, the role it is playing and the role it can play. I was in the European Parliament for two years, a brief time, but at the time the internal market committee dealt with the cross-border health care directive, which was passed in February 2011. I understand it remains to be transposed into Irish law but it is a welcome directive dealing with the free movement of people and the entitlement to access health care if it is not available in a person's country or if there is undue delay in his or her country. It is important that this directive is transposed into Irish law. I will continue to raise the question until such time as it is transposed. I understand this must take place within 30 months of 11 February 2011. This means there are only two or three months to go. I presume we must wait until it is transposed. It is an important directive and it is important that we set up the proper structures for dealing with it. The treatment abroad fund is probably covering this area at present. When I was speaking with those responsible they had not been familiarised with the procedures and it is important that familiarisation is put in place as soon as possible.

Ms Childers referred to the free movement of medicines. I believe this is a major issue given the cost of drugs and medication in the country. I have raised the matter here. I took part in a radio debate last night and focussed on this question. We have gone from spending €574 million per year on drugs and medication to spending €2 billion this year. There is no free movement of drugs and medication in the country or between this country and other countries. Ms Susan Mitchell from the Sunday Business Post has done a great service to the country with a number of articles she has penned in recent months highlighting items which are 25 times more expensive here compared to the United Kingdom. We have made little progress in bringing down the cost of generic drugs. We want people to benefit from the EU membership but this is one area where we have not benefited and we need to take action at national level.

We also need to ensure that people are not suggesting we cannot do certain things because of EU directives. The directives are provided to do the opposite, to help to ensure the cost of medication is reduced and that there is free movement. The EU Council Directive 89/105/EEC is being reviewed. It is important this issue is examined from the point of view of how we make it more cost-effective as well as addressing the domination of the market by several pharmaceutical companies in certain areas. That is another area that must be tackled. I accept they spend a great deal of money on research and development and that must be catered for as well.

It is important to highlight the benefits we get from Europe in the area of research and development. I am pleased to note that in the past two months UCC has got €6 million in research funding in the area of women's health.

It is very appropriate, given the current debate. It is for research into pre-eclampsia, which is caused by high blood pressure during pregnancy. It has received €6 million in funding for research in that area, together with a private company which is involved in research and development. That kind of research funding is helpful in improving health care across Europe.

We have a lot to do in regard to co-ordinating research and development across Europe. I have raised this matter on a number of occasions and have compared it to how research and development is done in the United States. If there were more co-operation between member states, Europe would be a major beneficiary. We need to do a lot more in terms of sharing information and working together, as opposed to working as individual states. The United States is ahead in many areas of research and development.

I agree with Ms Childers on the sale of tobacco products, which is a significant issue. One frightening thing in Ireland is the number of young girls who are smoking. Education is needed and it is something on which we need to work hard over the next few years. The real cost to our health service of those who use tobacco products is huge and needs to be tackled over the next three to four years.

I thank Ms Childers for her contribution. I agree with her on Seanad reform and the role it can play in scrutinising EU legislation and directives.

On medical devices, it is important that in dealing with any new regulation, full consultation take place with the manufacturers of medical devices, which is a major industry in Ireland. The Joint Committee on Health and Children nearly rubber-stamped something issued by the EU. I asked if consultation had taken place and it had not. It is an industry which employs many people in Ireland, something of which we need to be mindful.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Childers to the House. I wish to remark on her admirable commitment to transparency and accountability, especially in the area of appointments. In her words today she showed clearly that is something she practices. It is something we need to formalise more, within national as well as European institutions. I also note her 20 years' experience as a mental health professional, something she brings to her work as the co-chair of the European Parliament mental health interest group. Her background probably adds the human quality to her contributions in the Parliament.

I note her strongly held belief that the EU should not facilitate the pharmaceutical industry at the expense of good public health policy. I was happy to hear she was appointed as the co-author of the Parliament's legislation on pricing systems for medicines last year. Such a compassionate approach is often missing from politics. There is a tendency to lose focus on the impact our actions as legislators and parliamentarians can have on individual citizens, especially when dealing with the macro issue Europe currently faces.

In light of this, I commend Ms Childers's call in 2011 on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats to see a more robust EU response to HIV-AIDS within our borders, particularly a greater focus on early diagnosis and care and ensuring the human rights of the patient are protected and upheld. I note that the findings of David Stuckler of Oxford University and Sanjay Basu of Stanford University, which were published this week, pose a link between the current austerity measures being implemented throughout Europe and a host of negative health implications, such as the 200% increase in the HIV infection rate in Greece since 2011, a figure I found startling and alarming. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure we deal with that worrying trend. Does Ms Childers feel there is any renewed focus or progress on this issue in the Parliament? What more can national governments do in regard to HIV and AIDS and examining the impact of austerity measures on our health services, which have a direct and real impact on the health of our citizens?

I commend Ms Childers on her work as co-chair of the European Parliament's MEPs against Cancer group. Today she clearly articulated her campaign against tobacco. She is right to frame it as a public health issue. When I was on the European Economic and Social Committee, I did a lot of work on alcohol-related harm. The industry wanted to focus on it as an employment issue but it needs to be considered as a public health issue in terms of the cost to public health services and the impact it has on the health of individuals. I do not envy Ms Childers's challenge in taking on the tobacco industry, because when I was rapporteur on alcohol-related harm, on two occasions the industry tried to question the evidence I had, the organisation for which I worked in Ireland - the Children's Rights Alliance - and my motivations. It did not succeed; thankfully, my colleagues on the committee knew me well and supported my amendments and opinion.

I am working on a Bill with Senators John Crown and Mark Daly to address the issue of adults smoking in cars with children. We need to protect children. We tabled the Bill almost a year ago. The Government is close to tabling amendments so we can bring it to Committee Stage. Perhaps it is an issue we can talk about at a European level. I sometimes think we should examine what influence we could have at European level on such legislation.

In terms of Seanad reform, perhaps there is a way we can bring issues that we, as national legislators, are working on to MEPs. We could consider how we can co-operate and further enhance one another's roles for the benefit of citizens, something for which we all wish. I ask for the support of Ms Childers for that Bill. Let us see how we can work together. I agree with Seanad reform.

On transparency and accountability, reform starts with the individual. I welcome Ms Childers's publication of her meetings with NGOs and lobbyists and her expenses - I publish details of all the public money I receive and how it is used. Sometimes we talk about reform in the abstract but we now need to talk about real reform, which starts with us and how we operate as legislators.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Childers on behalf of the Labour Party Senators. Unlike Senator Burke, who played senior hurling in Brussels, I played on the junior team for six and a half years as a member of the committee of the regions. I have some sense of how matters in Brussels function and I respect the fact that Ms Childers outlined views that fit into a European context but not necessarily the Irish system.

I commend her on her excellent and detailed résumé of the work she has done as an MEP for the past four years. She has sometimes been outspoken and her frank commentary on the political system, as she sees it, in the European Parliament and on politics in general is refreshing.

I want to comment on her work on a new pricing system for medicines in Europe. I note from her contribution that new legislation will be passed and will come into effect some time in October, which will promote transparency in medicine pricing across Europe. Does she think this will tackle the pricing problem facing Irish people? As Senator Burke said, they can travel to mainland Europe and buy many products, such as cold and hay fever medicines, at prices that are 25 times lower than in Ireland.

Regarding this and prescription drugs, how long does Ms Childers think it will take for this legislation to be transposed into Irish law and will the Irish people see the benefit of it in the near future?

I would also like to comment on the work that is going on in Ireland regarding the consumption of tobacco products and tackling cancer. I note from the work and campaigning Ms Childers is doing in Brussels that she has an integral interest in ensuring Ireland gets the benefit from this. How effectively does Ms Childers think the work she is doing in Brussels will affect the situation in Ireland, particularly for young people and given the health problems we are storing up for the future?

In her paper today Ms Childers expressed concern about transparency being required for lobbying, and her commentary on lobbying within the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries is well noted. I ask Ms Childers to elaborate a little more on how she sees lobbying being dealt with under Irish legislation. Ms Childers referred to the fact that she made a submission to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, on the matter and it is important for us that she expand on that subject in some detail today. Deputy Howlin intends to bring in a register of lobbyists and publish legislation on that matter very soon. Could Ms Childers explain to us today how she sees that working? Does she envisage a list that includes every lobbyist in Ireland? She mentioned that 22,000 lobbyists are resident in Brussels and Strasbourg. Does she envisage that Oireachtas Members would be required to register all interactions with lobby groups on a daily or weekly basis? This should be done and I think it is workable. How feasible does Ms Childers think it is in the climate of Irish politics that we have come to understand and know over many years? Would she expect, for example, that every time a politician is lobbied - which happens from the time one leaves one's house in the morning until one goes home at night - it must be registered? Does she think this system is workable and feasible?

I welcome Ms Childers's interest in Seanad reform and her views on how the Seanad could take on a more proactive role regarding the examination of EU legislation. I find it very difficult at times to understand how EU law is transposed into Irish law for such ridiculous things as, for example, requiring an egg to be stamped and regulation on the shapes and types of vegetables we can sell. These are daft ideas that did not start in Ireland but have ended up being transposed into Irish law. What is Ms Childers's view on Ireland's being the "best boy in the class" and conforming with all EU regulations, in some cases to the detriment of our own economy?

How does Ms Childers see the role of the Seanad in bringing forward the legislation on lobbying? Does she have any comment on that? Could she expand a little more on her view that the European system of committees could be used in Ireland to better effect? Ms Childers mentioned in her contribution that there is no whip system in Europe and yet the system works very well. She was able to support 90% of the legislation that was brought through by Party of European Socialists, PES, groups in the European Parliament. How does Ms Childers think that would sit with us here in this Chamber, who are required to comply with a whip system, which Ms Childers knows can be difficult at times in the current economic climate?

I thank Ms Childers for attending today and giving us her perspective on lobbying, transparency, health and changes in the Seanad.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have great pleasure in welcoming Ms Childers to the Seanad today. She is a valued and respected colleague in the Labour Party. I had the good fortune only last week, at Ms Childers's invitation, to visit Brussels along with a group of 35 delegates from Laois and the midlands area. Not that we were in any doubt about it, but we could see at first hand her level of activity and work, the intensity of her work profile and the regard and respect with which she is held among her contemporaries and peers within the European Parliament structures for her work, particularly, as has been said by colleagues, in the areas of health and public health.

I want to ask Ms Childers about a matter of public health. I am not going to be a holy Joe or holier than thou. I like to take a drink - I am not anti-drink or teetotal - but we have mixed views and feelings in this country, particularly as policy makers and politicians, in our attitude to alcohol, particularly the abuse and excessive use of alcohol and the attendant social, domestic and health problems associated with it. Only last week horrific data came from the medical profession on the problems that are created as a result of alcohol abuse. What is happening at European level? While we criticise Europe a lot, it does drag Ireland kicking and screaming into a better world and a better place, as we are sometimes reluctant to bite the bullet ourselves. I am old enough to remember when we had the Carroll's GAA All Stars calendars and posters. The idea that a cigarette company could sponsor our elite GAA athletes would be regarded as an absurdity today.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a serious fan of all sports, and I remember not long ago when Formula 1 cars looked more like cigarette boxes with wheels on them going around the tracks. Now we have people telling us the whole world will fall apart if we do not have alcohol companies sponsoring big sports matches and field sports. I will not single out anybody, whether it is GAA, soccer or rugby. We must face up to that reality and it crosses over into Ms Childers's other area of lobbying.

There is much lobbying going on in the corridors of these Houses, but one would not know half the time who is doing the lobbying. Deputy Howlin's legislation will not be a day before its time, when we have the register of lobbyists and who exactly is representing whose interests. We must put the public and community interest first. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Shortall, was circumvented and stopped in her tracks when she tried to make progress in the Department of Health on minimum pricing and advertising of alcohol in certain contexts. What is happening in this regard in European legislation? We will ultimately have to face up to that reality and adapt to best practice in the area of public health regarding alcohol abuse.

John Kelly (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome Ms Childers and compliment her on her stance on austerity, with which I agree, as does the IMF. Before I came into the Seanad I spent 28 years working as a community welfare officer dealing with people on the margins. At the time one was dealing mainly with people on social welfare, but the new poor today are the middle income earners, the gardaí, nurses and teachers. No more blood can be sucked out of them. I feel very strongly, along Ms Childers's lines, that there must be another way forward. As Senator Landy said, we have been the best boy in the class and we have done as much as we can do. There must be another way forward.

While I know Ms Childers sits on the European Parliament’s environment committee, I am not sure if wind energy is one of her areas of expertise. For the past 14 months, I have been blowing the same trumpet on the issue of minimum distances wind turbines should be from family homes. I introduced a Bill on the matter, which passed Second Stage, which stated the taller the turbine, the further they must be set back from family homes. Of course, the Bill was parked, as Senator Leyden predicted with all his experience in this House.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for reminding me.

John Kelly (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many articles have appeared in the British Medical Journal suggesting there are health implications such as nausea, sleep deprivation and even cancer and heart attacks, arising from living too close to wind turbines. Although the Irish Wind Energy Association is a large lobby group, it is not able to counter these articles. Has Ms Childers heard any other debates in other EU member states on wind farm developments and energy? In the UK, they have decided they have enough of them and are asking us to erect them in our country for the provision of their power to destroy our landscape. When I met the Finnish ambassador several months ago, I told him of the problems we are having with wind farm developments too close to people's homes. Finnish policy, he explained, is that if people do not want them, the authorities do not force them on people. That is not the practice in this country. It is the Government's policy to reach certain targets and many of these farms are foisted on people.

Ms Nessa Childers:

Senator Leyden asked about a certain organisation. While I am not quite sure about it, I suspect it might well be a front for the tobacco lobby. I will talk about it later with the Senator because it is not appropriate to discuss it in public as I do not know the full story.

Senator Leyden also raised the matter of the loss of an Irish seat in the European Parliament due to the accession of Croatia. If any more countries join, I believe more seats will be provided. At this rate, we will probably have to be in another building because there are not enough seats in the hemicycle where we vote. While we have made our feelings known about the seat, the Government will not use its veto in this regard. I am sure no other government would have used the veto in this case. I have heard rumours that Greece and Romania are getting twitchy about it, however.

Many of the issues relating to national parliaments and legislative oversight as provided for in the Lisbon treaty are the responsibility of each member state. If the oversight goes below a certain level, there is a violation of the Lisbon treaty. It is the Government and political parties which must deal with that failure. One cannot have legislative oversight unless the Seanad is allowed to object to legislation and vote it down. One really should not have this protected situation. The whole Irish political system simply rubber-stamps legislation and has voted through emergency legislation without anyone knowing properly for what they are voting. I recall my father in the early 1970s was concerned about emergency legislation. There were emergency Acts going through the Dáil, some of them at 3 a.m. I remember him saying we will rue the day when we pass legislation without knowing its consequences and we will not be able to repeal it or forget to repeal it. It does not matter if people agree with legislation as there is a whole principle of informed consent. This moves outwards from emergency legislation, like the vote on the promissory note, to European oversight. How does one end the rubber-stamping? I cannot do anything because it is a political issue. The Government has a huge majority and the Seanad will crash and burn unless Senators exercise hard political power to stop it happening. It involves more than talking.

Senator Burke referred to the free movement of medication. That is part of the cross-border health care package and prescriptions, for example, could be used in different member states. It is complex legislation but it means people will be able to receive treatment in other countries. This legislation will be transposed in about three months.

I have been talking to the medical device industry for well over a year now on this review of the directive. The fact the Poly Implant Prothèse, PIP, breast implant scandal happened in the middle of the review was not helpful. It will be difficult to guarantee against criminal fraud such as that but there are other issues involved.

Senator van Turnhout spoke about early diagnosis of HIV-AIDS. MEPs can actually act as advocates at that level in member states and encourage best practice. The best European medical practices are transposed in member states. That is one of the reasons we have round-table discussions. Early diagnosis of many health conditions is becoming a problem because of cutbacks. Early diagnosis is a sine qua non because it is necessary for the patient and is more cost effective in treatment.

Senator van Turnhout referred to the public health situation in Greece.

If people knew what was happening with regard to public health in Greece generally, they would be absolutely horrified. People are not being treated properly for cancer. To some degree, the Greek health system has failed. Médicins Sans Frontières is now in Greece trying to deal with the situation. Children there are suffering from malnutrition and have been seen going through bins searching for food. Well over a year ago, we began to hear what was happening with regard to the health system. I have asked doctors everywhere to try to help and some of the medical organisations here are interacting with their Greek counterparts. Great things have been done by doctors in Greece in trying to keep hospitals open but what has happened there is a lesson for us. How, with the Lisbon treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we could have allowed such a situation to occur is beyond me.

We must be wary of where we are going here. If, as part of this austerity, we cut hundreds of millions out of our health budget, people must ask questions about what will happen to our health system as a result. Our health system is already staggering under the weight of cuts that have been imposed. We should be horrified by what has happened in Greece. We should be horrified that such things can happen in any European Union country. We must also be wary of what may happen here. Any investigation into the current Greek health situation will demonstrate what I mean.

The issue of tobacco as a public health issue was raised. I maintain that tobacco should be banned. Both my father and my brother died of tobacco-related illnesses and one of my other brothers had a heart attack and survived, but had to stop smoking. When it affects one personally, one realises the need to control the sale of tobacco. We are up against the lobbyists. The information is in the public domain that two Ministers met with the tobacco industry, in violation of the world tobacco treaty that was ratified in 2004. It is within Members' remit to ask questions about that. I am a great believer in asking questions. A great deal needs to be done at national level. Somebody suggested the banning of smoking in cars carrying children. I would agree with that. I grew up with pipe smoke in the car. I have developed asthma since, and am convinced it is as a result of spending hours in a smoke-filled car. We did not know then about passive smoking, but I am convinced it is one of the reasons for my asthma.

I am looking at my notes to see which questions I have yet to answer.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sometimes it can be difficult to follow or understand some Senators. Feel free to seek a clarification on any of the questions.

Ms Nessa Childers:

There has been a lot of talk about lobbying and my submissions on how we should deal with it. Legislation is not needed to begin that process, although it would be helpful. Members could list on their websites the names of everybody they meet who is trying to influence them. Of course, there is nothing wrong in that. If Members look at MEPs' websites, they will see that a number of MEPs, including myself, list all the meetings we have with what I consider lobbyists - not only industry lobbyists, but environment and health NGOs. Those whom I have met can be seen on my website. Also, any event I attend where I receive hospitality is mentioned. Sometimes I go to a meeting, but do not eat or accept the hospitality offered. I have found recording this quite difficult. One should try to record when one has been in receipt of hospitality. There have been occasions on which I have attended meetings but have not had the food on offer.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Ms Childers take a glass of wine?

Ms Nessa Childers:

I do not drink during the day and not much at night. That is another health risk for politicians.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Childers is setting the bar very high for everybody else.

Ms Nessa Childers:

Senator Whelan raised the issue of alcohol-related harm and the position in Europe. This is a national issue, but it does arise in the European Parliament. The expert platform in which I am involved is attempting to try and draw it down to national level. This is difficult, because it is a member state competence. The issue of the pricing of medicines is also a member state competence, but member states now have the ability to see what other states are paying for medicine. This issue is contentious also and is going to the Council in October. The Irish Presidency is trying to deal with that legislation. Members here have a way of influencing European legislation. They can interact with the Irish Government members who go to Council and negotiate and in that way try to change their policy.

To return to the question of alcohol, we have not yet addressed the issue of putting a floor underneath the price of alcohol. Perhaps somebody here can tell me the position regarding that legislation. Has it ground to a halt?

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is under discussion.

Ms Nessa Childers:

That discussion should be conducted as quickly as possible. Alcohol and tobacco are hugely problematic and the lobbyists in both areas are very powerful, particularly in the alcohol industry. We see lobbyists in these industries disguise themselves in various ways - for example, as anti-smuggling or anti-counterfeiting lobbyists. These are concerns, but if we know how to investigate these issues, we can find out who is behind them. If we do find out, we must expose them. There are a number of ways of going about this. In the case of tobacco, I consider public relations firms that work in the tobacco area to be the equivalent of arms dealers. Deputy James Reilly said something even worse about them. I told the ASH organisation that I would expose such firms if I saw them, and I did. I know that is a hard approach, but it is necessary. If our children are not to die of tobacco-related illnesses, this is what we need to do. I do not believe lobbying in regard to tobacco is the same as other kinds of lobbying or public relations, because these lobbyists support things that kill people. On our attitude to alcohol, it is up to all of us to change the attitude. Perhaps we should provide an example here.

Senator Kelly asked about wind energy, but I need to explore that further as it relates to the energy committee rather than the environment committee. There is so much legislation to be dealt with overall that one could easily become derailed. I am aware that when the Chair of the environment committee came here as part of the Presidency, he met with people in the wind energy sector. I must ask him more about that, but I will also find out what the position is in Europe with regard to wind energy. Our planning system does not work very well with regard to these things. We must also be very sensitive to the health implications of wind turbines. I am not an expert in that area and I have not had the time to explore it.

I think I have dealt with all of the questions, but feel free to tell me if I have not.

Denis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to thank Ms Childers for her very honest response. I realise there were a lot of questions to be answered, but perhaps she will give a little time to one I raised concerning the willingness of the Irish State to transpose legislation into Irish law, sometimes to the detriment of our economy and sometimes creating a disadvantage for Ireland against other EU states. I discovered during my hurling days in Brussels that other member states just left some of this legislation on the shelf and carried on regardless.

We were the good boys in the class and we suffered economically. Would Ms Childers like to comment on this? Is it just a view I have picked up which is not fair or would she have seen it from a broader perspective?

Ms Nessa Childers:

We certainly were not the good boys with regard to some legislation on the environment such as the habitats directive and the water framework directive. I do not know where the "good boys" thing came from in that area. In other areas, it is how we transpose legislation, which is a national competence. It can be done in more or less difficult ways, but how it is done is the business of people over here. Surely, how it is transposed should be part of the Seanad oversight.

Some Members may have more experience on this issue. I have never been a national politician, God help me, so I do not actually know how this works in a detailed way, but perhaps some Members do.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call Senator Crown, I want to welcome the group of women from Cavan to the Visitors Gallery. There is at least one woman from Monaghan here also. I hope they enjoy their tour.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Childers, who has been a wonderful ambassador for our country in the European Parliament. I speak as a committed European and, in many ways, as an anti-nationalist with a small "n". I have this theory that, in 50 or 100 years time, people will look on the concept of nationalism in a somewhat similar way to the way they look on the concept of racism now. I do not necessarily think it a great idea.

I would, however, like to say that from a practical and democratic point of view, harmonisation, laudable as it may be in many areas, should not be an end on its own. It should not be an absolute goal we aim for because harmonisation sometimes means winnowing things down to the lowest common denominator rather than striving to the highest plateau, where things are at their best. This has certainly been the case with some aspects of health and research. There have been a few areas in recent years where an attempt to enforce harmonisation has had potentially negative, and in the future could have potentially disastrous, consequences on areas that are very close to my heart, for example, clinical trials.

About seven years ago, Europe introduced the clinical trials directive, which attempted to address the kind of chaos many people who work in bureaucracies do not like when they see dissonant sets of criteria and goals, and different jurisdictions over which they have some kind of loose authority doing the same jobs. It just happened there were very different ways of approving clinical trials in Europe and an attempt was made to harmonise them. As part of the harmonisation process, a number of the measures which were introduced, which I will not bore my colleagues with today, are now generally recognised to have been very negative. However, because this passed the Commission and then passed the Parliament, there was not a mechanism in Europe to roll it back.

At the time that harmonisation was dawning, a few of us started an information campaign to try to get people to wake up to what they had actually signed up to. We were told politely that, because it had passed both entities, it is now written in granite, cannot be changed and we are stuck with it. Luckily, it was a directive and not a regulation, which basically meant we could ignore it, although people did not quite understand it at the time. There should be a big learning curve attached to that.

A regulation is now coming in and I believe it needs real and careful attention. The instinctive, visceral harmonisers, well-intentioned as they may be, as they are not familiar with the realities on the ground of how a lot of research works, may end up taking some of the worst jurisdictions from the point of view of research and enforcing their standards on the rest of us. Without in any sense being disrespectful to our near neighbours, clinical trails in the United Kingdom have been extremely difficult to conduct in recent years. The approvals process has become so long that many British patients, in particular British patients with breast cancer, have been denied early and expeditious access to drugs which could have been very beneficial for them. I greatly fear that, in pursuit of compliance with forthcoming European regulations, the same kind of regressive regime may be imposed here. In the next month or two, I hope we will be looking at this closely in a number of fora in our own jurisdiction, but I would like to mark Ms Childers's card that there are problems with it.

Other collateral damage which arises from good intentions relates to the attempts to bring in data protection legislation. Those who wish to bring in such legislation have their hearts in the right place in that they are trying to protect private and personal data that people may have online and so on. However, they did not think it through to the extent that there is a real risk the kind of cancer and other research which involves collecting specimens in many cases from people who are deceased - this is the kind of research that enabled us to introduce a number of critical drugs like Trastuzumab, otherwise know as Herceptin - could not take place now under the new regime because dead people cannot give consent to have their anonymised materials used for research purposes. Again, not only is the baby going out with the bath water, there is potential for real disaster which needs to be addressed.

On the issue of drug pricing, there is a bigger picture. In Ireland, we have been misinformed about what we need to do. Obviously, we need to move in a large way to the use of generic drugs and the cheapest alternative drugs. As I said, I have voted with my own health on this. I now insist on taking a generic cholesterol lowering drug myself and I believe everybody should insist on getting the cheapest generic drug for whatever conditions they have.

However, there are some things we cannot do in this jurisdiction. I want to draw attention to something that is happening with cancer drugs. For many years, we had no new meaningful cancer drugs because science and technology had not yet caught up with the theoretical science to give us new drugs. There has been a revolution in this regard. In the last decade we have seen several drugs per annum and in the last few years we have seen several drugs per month coming out, with data which looked extremely promising. People have this idea that drugs have been priced by some kind of a mark-up principle on top of the development cost of the drug. That is changing. What is happening now is that highly technically proficient and skilled marketeers, using the principles, theory and practice of marketing, are trying to work out what is the highest price one can charge at which the inflection point for demand occurs - when it becomes elastic and people will basically say we will no longer pay for that drug because it is too expensive. They are pitching for the very highest point on that curve.

Coupled with the kind of emotional blackmail which is built into the availability of new drugs, we have the situation where a drug like Herceptin, with which I was very involved, cost about €30,000 per annum to provide. However, I know the trials that were used to licence Herceptin involved 15,000 patients, so there was an expense involved in developing the drug. There are drugs coming out now that are being priced at between €100,000 and €200,000, and I know in the case of one drug that the licensing trial which led to this drug being licensed involved fewer than 100 patients. There is an absolute, utter and complete mismatch occurring between the development costs of drugs and what companies are going to attempt to charge for them in the future. This is because of market forces. While I am broadly sympathetic to market forces when they are true markets, this is not the case with regard to monopoly markets, which is what drug companies with a new product for an emotionally draining cancer have.

What we need to do collectively in the Western world, including in Europe and with our colleagues in other parts of the Western community of similar democratically and economically constituted countries, is to have a concerted policy which will say to the companies "You make great products and you deserve to make a profit, but this is the limit and we are never paying more than this for any drug you come out with. Learn to live with it, make the drug viable and it can be done." This is something we will be attempting to launch as an information campaign over the next while.

What we need to do collectively in the Western world, including in Europe and with our colleagues in other parts of the Western community of similarly democratically and economically constituted countries, is to have a concerted policy which will say to the companies "You make great products and you deserve to make a profit, but this is the limit and we are never paying more than this for any drug you come out with. Learn to live with it, make the drug viable and it can be done". This is something we will be attempting to launch as an information campaign over the next while.

I heard Ms Childers's comments on second-hand smoke exposure. I am the sponsor, together with Senators van Turnhout and Daly, of the legislation which we hope, perhaps in this session, will result in one of the successors to Ms Childers's late, great father's office signing legislation which will make it illegal to smoke in cars in which there are children. We are trying to go further. What we are trying to do is to create a debate in Europe around the idea that the tobacco trade, which is a part of the drug trade, is not just something we should be regulating and reining in, it is something we should be ending. People may have a right to smoke, and I do not dispute that, but no one has a civil right to addict children to cancer-causing chemicals. It is absurd to think there is a civil liberty to make a profit from selling cancer-causing addictive products whose very commercial continuation depends entirely on recruiting new underage smokers to the ranks of the abusers.

That is why we have started a campaign called SOS 2030, which has a website I hope Ms Childers will sign up to and ask all her European parliamentary colleagues - a minority of whom, I presume, do not smoke - to sign up to. This will commit us to the idea that we will start the wheels rolling so that by the year 2030, after we give the farmers time to grow something else, give the pension funds time to divest and give the factories a chance to re-tool the plants and to make food products rather than tobacco products in an increasingly food deprived and challenged world, it will just not be legal to engage in any commercial transactions with tobacco.

People might argue that this will encourage smuggling and the black market. Yes, it will but if the people in the boardrooms of British American Tobacco, R. J. Reynolds and all these other entities wish to sell tobacco by that date, they will be doing it with the same commercial plan and according to the same business model as the Medellin or Cali cartels or the Taliban in Afghanistan. If they wish to continue doing it, let them do it. It will suck the money out of the PR companies and lobbying agencies which have so polluted public policy in this area. It may sound a bit quixotic but it is something we should aim to do and I believe it is quite practical to get people to sign up and join it now. I thank Ms Childers for the opportunity to meet her again and look forward to working with her on a number of these health-related issues in the future. I apologise as I must leave the Chamber as I have been called to another health-related meeting.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I ask Ms Childers to speak, I will take a very brief supplementary from Senator Colm Burke.

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Childers for her contribution here today. I wish to touch on the role of medical practitioners in this country and how we as a country seem to be going outside Europe to recruit doctors. I think we now have the highest number of doctors from outside the EU compared to any other country in Europe and are taking them from countries that need to retain their own doctors. I also wish to touch on the need for co-operation between Europe and Ireland with regard to training. We are very much tied to the UK, which is very much tied to India, Pakistan, Sudan and a number of other areas. As a result, we have junior doctors coming from those countries. We need to do much more work regarding doctors travelling from within the EU to work in other countries. I do not think we are doing enough in this area. From a European perspective, there is a huge advantage for us in developing common training in a range of areas relating to medical education.

Ms Nessa Childers:

I thank Senator Crown. The clinical trials directive is now being redone and is going through the European Parliament. It may go through overseen by the Irish Presidency. This is where MEPs can interact in all kinds of ways with interested and concerned people. We can put down amendments to these directives if we think the legislation is going in the wrong direction. I already have my eye on the clinical trials directive. The rapporteur is a British socialist MEP, which is interesting when Senator Crown is talking about the situation in the UK with regard to clinical trials. We will be monitoring that very carefully because although the clinical trials directive is very technical in some ways, it will impact on many people with cancer. There are many technicalities. Senator Crown was very concerned that things will go wrong with the harmonisation process. We need to be very careful about who could be harmed by a lack of access to trialled drugs and how quickly they come out of trials.

Data protection is another thorny issue. I attended a large conference recently where that issue was discussed. There is no easy answer to it but I imagine it will be dealt with one way or another. Senator Crown referred to the mismatch between the cost of drugs and how much they cost to develop and the inflection point. There seem to be so many issues relating to the price we pay for drugs in Ireland. I do not understand what the real issue is. The troika has seemingly met with the heads of the large pharmaceutical companies. I suspect that some of the reasons for this result from what goes on behind closed doors. Ireland needs to deal with that issue. I do not understand why it is so difficult. We have done our best to manoeuvre the legislation on the transparency directive regarding the pricing of medicines through the Council. It is still quite contentious. Member states do not like their competences being interfered with this area so it will go to the Council in October.

With regard to the tobacco industry, we need to create a debate about whether anyone has the right to sell products that do this to children. The SOS 2030 initiative is very interesting. By 2030, perhaps we can change practices in countries where agriculture is partly based on growing tobacco. That is very difficult. These countries get very worried about this and lobby against it. It is not easy because they will tell one that thousands of jobs will be lost. That may not be true but some way must be found at member state level to negotiate our way out of tobacco being legal. The European Parliament has 736 MEPs, including 12 Croatians. We must find compromises all the time for everything, including tobacco. Otherwise the legislation fails and does not go to plenary and the whole thing falls apart. We do not want that happening with the tobacco directive.

In respect of the training of medical practitioners, there is a directive called the professional qualifications directive. It does not relate to my committee. It is being dealt with by the Internal Market and consumer protection committee but I have been overseeing it. I am holding a seminar with a Romanian MEP about doctors leaving their own countries and going to work in other countries and the shortages this causes. There is a problem with the infrastructure in health services. It will be interesting to see what comes out of that. The professional qualifications directive is supposed to deal with this. The Irish Medical Organisation visited us in Brussels. It is quite controversial in ways I will not go into because it is not my area but there are controversies regarding the harmonisation of qualifications in different European countries.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank her for being here.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is not a Minister yet but she will be.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should have said MEP, or Deputy, which I think is the right term. My apologies for that. We are used to having a Minister sitting in the chair in which Ms Childers is sitting. I know she has been vocally opposed to many policies coming from Europe and even from this State in recent times, which is to be welcomed. The topic she is here to discuss is the challenges for transparency in decision making with regard to EU health policy and a role for the Seanad in scrutinising EU policy. I would certainly be a big supporter of the continuation of the Seanad and a clear role for it in scrutinising EU legislation and having linkages with our MEPs.

In respect of health, this State still has a problem with people waiting on hospital trolleys, long waiting lists, people not getting proper treatment and people with private health insurance getting treated more quickly and in a better fashion. This is a form of institutionalised queue jumping. That is the reality of our public health service and its incremental privatisation. We are here to discuss transparency. No Senator could honestly say that we have a transparent health system when one looks at the HSE and what it has become over a long period of time. I know the Government says it is committed to dealing with it but I do not see any evidence that what we will get will be a truly transparent system. We are all waiting for the Higgins report, which Ms Childers might be aware of, which will look at a reconfiguration of hospitals, the formation of groupings and then trusts.

There will be clusters of hospitals with academic linkages such that big hospitals will link with small ones through third and fourth level academic institutions.

There is still no democratic accountability. The old health boards were abolished and the HSE was set up. Time and again in this House I have heard the current and previous Ministers for Health and Children washing their hands of responsibility for what is happening in the health service. I do not know if anybody in this House has used any of their colleagues in the Lower House to put down parliamentary questions to the Minister for Health and Children. If so, seven out of ten replies refer the questioners to the HSE which will refer them to somebody else. One goes around the houses before getting a response. Transparency is the last thing we have in our public health services, unfortunately. This State is not in a position to lecture anybody in Europe about health policy, accountability and transparency when it is so lacking in those things itself.

I had a lot more to say because I did not realise I had only two minutes in which to speak. I will wrap up by thanking the MEP for coming to the House. Health is an area in which the EU can be a driver for real change. Like Ms Childers I believe in a social Europe. The EU has lost its way. It has been overtaken by neo-liberals who are implementing policies which work against the development of a social Europe. I would like to see it move in a different direction. It should focus on health, education and investment in public services. It should make sure that people have rights and that those rights are vindicated by member states and that we do not have the institutionalised inequalities in public services which we now have across Europe. The EU could do a lot more in the area of health care to achieve the social Europe that Ms Childers and I want to see. I would appreciate her thoughts on that and on the Irish health care system.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Childers to the House. I am delighted she is here. We learnt that her title is to be Deputy. I welcome this debate on the EU public health legislation and I agree entirely with Senator Cullinane. There is a future for this House but it must change what it does. One thing we can do is make sure we change our duties, one of which must be to ensure EU legislation receives much more scrutiny than it has had up to now. Much of the legislation that comes from Europe aims to improve the lives of European citizens and public health legislation can be seen as one of the principal and obvious areas in which the EU can benefit its citizens.

The title of the Deputy's address points me to several specific topics, including tobacco lobbying. The EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli, resigned over allegations that he used a middle man to ask a Swedish tobacco company for millions of euro to change EU legislation on tobacco, as well as the horsemeat scandal. I will quote from a letter from transparency group Alter-EU as reported in The Parliament.com, which states, "The commission has now been attacked for its 'failure' to 'properly implement' an international convention designed to protect lawmaking from the 'vested interests' of the tobacco industry." There have been claims that European Commission departments "currently fail to provide transparency around meetings with tobacco industry lobbyists and those working to further the tobacco industry's interests." It also seems that some MEPs have been fielding questions and putting forward amendments on behalf of tobacco lobbyists. I would love to know the Deputy's view on this. Can she elaborate on whether the EU institutions are doing anything to remedy this?

The point I find worrying about the horsemeat scandal is that it came to light only via a random food check here. While some argue this is not a public health scandal, and I agree, can we have confidence in the EU's ability to prevent a full-blown public health scandal such as that might have been? There has been an argument that relatively recent EU requirements on mincemeat pushed up costs and led to retailers buying questionable meat from other sources, including those outside the EU. The horsemeat scandal does not inspire much confidence in the EU.

I have always called for more traceability. That can extend to pharmaceuticals. In Belgium and Italy every drug can be traced with a bar code. This is a very important service, especially when there is a massive rise in counterfeit medicines. I am not referring only to Ireland but to the whole of Europe. What are we doing at a national level? We must do everything to protect the consumer and we have not been doing that. I welcome the recent vote in the European Parliament on giving patients quicker access to cheaper generic medicines. New EU rules will require national authorities to meet these new deadlines. I would like to hear the Deputy's views on whether we can do more than we are doing to protect the health of European citizens.

Ms Nessa Childers:

In response to Senator Cullinane, I do not know I can talk about the HSE here. I despair of it. The Irish health service seems to have been malfunctioning for decades. The only thing I can do is work as an MEP on legislation in the European Parliament. I work with many health groups that work here. They come to see me in Europe, with their European counterparts. I go to meetings and have round table discussions with them but I cannot change the Irish health system. That is the job of the Oireachtas. All across Europe health systems in countries that are in austerity programmes have suffered. This appalling austerity is apparently the result of a mistake in a spreadsheet which is a simplistic way of looking at it, but it may be true. Greece has suffered the most. I spoke about that before Senator Cullinane came in to the House. I can draw attention to those things. I can use political pressure on Irish legislators but it is beyond me to understand how our health service has got into the current situation. It is only partly the responsibility of the present Government. This has been going on for years.

Somehow or other we will have to change the health system. Strides are being made towards changing it to a universal health care system. There can be problems with that as well, as there are for example, in Holland. Anything would be better than what we have now but we will have to deal with it for another few years. It is not my place to talk about the HSE. The Senator's colleagues in here can perhaps answer those questions. I see how 27 other health services operate. In the EU, health is still a member state competence but the situation is so bad in some countries that at meetings people ask if, for example, in Greece, we are violating the charter of fundamental rights because of the problems people have accessing health services there. It is very frustrating but it is a member state competence. Apart from the directives we have discussed such as the cross-border health care directive, which at least gives some people some rights to health services, the tobacco directive and clinical trials directive are in our competence. I cannot talk about the HSE. It is too difficult.

Senator Quinn spoke about the horsemeat scandal. It was discovered almost by accident. The Senator is right that prior to this there have been problems around traceability in the European Union, for example, the dioxins in pigmeat. The horsemeat problem has forced the EU and those with responsibility for food safety, which is part of the remit of my committee, to examine how it does things.

What transpired was that there were massive failures. Possible fraud occurred in up to 14 European countries. As in the breast implants situation, labels were changed and people thought the product was beef but it was horsemeat. Perhaps the cost of meat was behind it. However, we must do something about it because the loss of confidence in our food has become obvious as a result. It was not only the fact there was horsemeat in products; I am not sure people liked the idea that they did not know what was in the food they were eating. As MEPs, Deputies and Senators, we must be much more careful to warn people about the content of certain processed foods.

This concerns the whole question of food labelling. I am not sure whether Members would have agreed with the traffic light system which we failed to get through the European Parliament, although we got country of origin labelling through. It was one of the regulations which was of great interest to everybody who was interested in food. I will meet Green Foundation Ireland in September on this subject. We must work very hard to ensure we do it right. The horsemeat issue was a wake up call. It should not have happened but it did.

Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of all colleagues, I thank Ms Childers for coming to the Seanad and for her very comprehensive contribution and for the answers she gave to a variety of question posed. Perhaps some questions were not relevant to the topic but she was gracious enough to answer them in great detail.