The decision by the incoming Spanish Presidency to prioritise the implementation of the EU Citizen’s Initiative which is outlined to in the Lisbon Treaty is very welcome. This initiative is an ambitious one. The EU is a trans-national democracy consisting of 27 Member States with differing political cultures. The effective implementation of the initiative could contribute over time to a necessary enrichment of the concept of EU Citizenship. It also has the potential to play an important part in addressing the ‘legitimacy’ problems faced by the EU. These problems stem to a large extent from a common perception amongst EU citizens that there is an entrenched democratic deficit at the heart of the way in which the Union functions as a political system.

The successful implementation of this citizen’s initiative, however, cannot be taken for granted. I will begin my submission by outlining some general proposals concerning the possible implementation of the initiative. Were the Commission to adopt these proposals, I believe that the possibility that the EU Citizen’s Initiative would realise its potential as an important instrument to strengthen the ‘democratic fabric’ of the Union could be greatly increased.

Submission proposals

My proposals concerning the Citizen’s Initiative are as follows:  

(i) EU Citizenship Unit

A special unit on EU Citizenship should be established within the Commission over the next year or two. Responsibility for most aspects of the operation of the Citizen’s Initiative should rest with this unit.

(ii) Information and public awareness campaign

The operation of the EU Citizen’s Initiative has little hope of success unless its launch coincides with a properly planned and resourced information /public awareness campaign about the initiative aimed at citizens across all Member States. This public awareness campaign should be managed by the Commission.

( iii )Engagement of national governments and parliaments

The governments and national parliaments of the Member States have a critical role to play in ensuring the effective implementation of the EU Citizen’s Initiative. The cautious response to date of some of my own fellow national parliamentarians to the proposed implementation of this initiative suggests that there is a need for the Commission to act in order to engage national governments and parliaments with the Citizen’s Initiative, and to encourage their co-operation with its effective implementation. This could involve prioritising discussions on the Citizen’s Initiative at both the level of the European Council and at relevant Council of Ministers’ meetings. Furthermore, a formal commitment could be sought from Heads of State, Prime Ministers and relevant government ministers that adequate resources will be made available by Member States to enable, for example, acceptable national verification procedures to be established for citizen’s signatures that are collected as part of the initiative.

(iv) EU Citizen’s Initiative Task Force

While the timeframe that has been given to the Commission for advancing proposals concerning the EU Citizen’s Initiative is relatively brief, it is important that sufficient time and attention are given to some of the problems/challenges that might arise in relation to its implementation. It would seem sensible for the Commission to form an EU Citizen’s Initiative Task Force or Working Group, to tease out the many practical issues, and even ‘unintended consequences’ that may arise as a result of the implementation of the initiative. This group could include Commission officials, representatives of civil society, national and European parliamentarians, experts from jurisdictions where citizen’s petitions/initiatives are in operation, and internet/social media experts. This group could ‘stress test’ the likely operation of the initiative and ensure that most possible scenarios have been anticipated, and planned for. This should help to avoid any serious problems when the initiative is eventually launched.

(v) EU Citizen’s Initiative website

Citizen’s expectations with regard to this new initiative will need to be carefully managed. This can only be done by providing them with full information and explanation about the use of petitions/citizen’s initiatives in other jurisdictions, the perceived strengths and weaknesses of these initiatives, the parameters within which an EU Citizen’s initiative can be framed, the issue of the admissibility of citizen’s initiatives and the role that the Commission, Council of Ministers and EU Parliament will play in the eventual adoption of the requested legislation. In fact, this will provide a very useful opportunity to educate citizens about the respective roles of the various EU institutions and the competences given to them across different policy areas by the EU treaties etc. This will require a well-designed website to be developed which is dedicated to the EU Citizen’s Initiative and that will provide all of the necessary information for those interested in participating in an initiative. Innovative approaches could be used to communicate some of this information and to avoid a ‘text-overload’ on the website.

(vi) Use of the internet and online communication

Considerable awareness now exists of the skilful way in which US President Barack Obama used the internet and online communication to engage a significant section of the vast US electorate in his presidential campaign. The same potential exists in relation to the use of the internet and online communication to engage EU citizens with the EU Citizen’s Initiative process. This potential should be fully exploited in the way that the initiative is rolled out across the Union.

Green Paper on the EU Citizen’s Initiative – Answering the Commission’s  questions

1. Minimum number of Member States from which citizens should come

I believe the option of one third of Member States is a sensible one. It avoids the otherwise likely scenario where citizen’s initiatives would be launched by a bloc or “geographical subsystem” of Member States (ie the Central and Eastern European Member States, the Northern European States, the Southern European States etc). The citizen’s initiatives launched by these blocs could be seen as advancing their own particular interests rather than those of the Union as a whole. The requirement that citizens from at least a third of Member States participate in an EU Citizen’s Initiative makes this less likely in my opinion.

1. Minimum number of signatures per Member State

I consider that 0.2% of the total population of each Member State is an appropriate threshold, is sufficiently low not to discourage citizens from organising themselves and yet is high enough to represent an acceptable percentage at a European level.

3.  Eligibility to support a Citizen’s Initiative – minimum age

I believe that the launch of the EU Citizen’s Initiative offers a unique opportunity to try to engage more young people in European politics and in an emerging European public space. For that reason, although I do recognise the convenience of limiting participation in the initiative to those who are of voting age for the European Parliament elections in each Member State, I believe that the age at which citizens should be entitled to take part should be set at 16 years.(In the interests of reassuring those who might be concerned about the possibly disproportionate impact of non-voting 16 year old citizens on legislative proposals emerging from the EU Commission, it might be possible to specify that the signatures of 16 and 17year olds should not amount to more than a given percentage of signatures gathered within any Member State).It is important to point out that under my proposal, 16 and 17 year olds would not be given the right to vote for elected representatives, but rather to try to exercise an (albeit) limited influence on the legislative agenda of the Union within the parameters set down by the Treaties. I do understand that the governments of many Member States may be unwilling to support this as it may create pressure to introduce something similar at a domestic level. However, on the other hand it would indicate that the new and evolving political system that is the EU is offering innovative forms of political engagement to young people who cannot access such opportunities under most of the more traditional national political systems.

1. Form and wording of a Citizen’s Initiative

I believe an initiative should require that the subject matter and objectives of the proposal on which the Commission is invited to act should be clearly stated. I don’t believe that citizens should be obliged to state these using legal terminology or phrasing. This can be done at a later stage by the Commission once the initiative has been deemed to be valid.

1. Requirement for the collection, verification and authentication of signatures

The eventual success or otherwise of the European Citizen’s Initiative will largely stand or fall on the effectiveness and transparency of the collection, verification and authentication of signatures. I wish to make a few short points in this regard. Firstly I believe that full harmonisation of procedural requirements at EU level would not be practical. However I believe that Member States must solemnly commit to putting in place effective and transparent collection verification and authentication procedures and that these should be subject to regular audit by an independent body. Citizen should be able to support a Citizen’s Initiative online. However, security and authentication features should be built in to the process, whether this involves the use of social security numbers, passport numbers and other personal identification markers. The process should not be so easy to complete that it encourages those who have little interest in the content of the initiative to add their signature mischievously or fraudulently. Given the geographical size (and growing) of the European Union, it is inevitable that online debate and communication will form an important element of any European public space. The operation of the EU Citizen’s Initiative should recognise this fact.

1. Time limit for collection of signatures

I believe that a time limit of one year for the collection of signatures is acceptable.

1. Registration of proposed initiatives

I believe the mandatory registration of proposed initiatives is necessary. This could be done through a specific website provided by the Commission. I also agree with others who have suggested that the admissibility of the proposed initiative should be established at an early stage before the time-consuming process of collecting signatures is entered into. I also believe that the Commission’s responses to the proposed initiatives should be made available on the website. Complete transparency will be very important with regard to the citizen’s initiative process and others wishing to participate in such initiatives may learn from the experiences of others through access the information on the website. In the event that a citizen’s initiative results in the successful adoption of the legislation requested, this could be recorded on the website. Successful participants could be interviewed on video and share their experience with other interested parties.

1. Requirements for organisers – transparency and funding

I believe that organisers should be required to provide information on the support and funding they have for an initiative. I believe that in the case of any Citizen’s Initiative that is submitted, there should be a named sponsoring organisation or individual who can liaise with the Commission regarding any aspect of the initiative. I believe there should also be full transparency requirements around any funding connected with the initiative and the campaign surrounding it. It is not clear whether this could be done at a national level with the appropriate bodies or whether it would need to occur at an EU level.

1. Examination of Citizen’s Initiatives by the Commission

I believe a clear timeline should be set for each stage of the Citizen’s Initiative process, outlining maximum time periods within which certain actions had to occur. The process should not be open-ended or at the discretion of the Commission or any of the other EU institutions. There should be clarity and certainty for participating citizens about what they can expect to happen and within what time- frame.

1. Initiatives on the same issue.

I believe it is appropriate to introduce rules to prevent the successive presentation of Citizen’s Initiatives in relation to a particular issue, as long as the issue is very particular and well-defined. There is a danger that in relation to a wide-ranging policy area such as Climate Change, it would be unreasonable to exclude legislative proposals that sought to tackle the problem but using very different means or legislative approaches. Therefore I think the rules draw up in this area need to be  qualified somewhat as a rigid interpretation might exclude very worthy and legitimate legislative proposals.

The citizens’ initiative is a very important development and those of us who encouraged a “Yes” vote to the Lisbon treaty pushed it to reassure many people who feel the European Union does not listen to them and that they cannot influence its decision making or policy agenda. We made a case that the citizens’ initiative will be an important mechanism to help them have their voice heard and try to influence policies emerging from Europe. I am delighted to see the quick movement on this; the Lisbon treaty was ratified recently and already we see early movement on rolling out the citizens’ initiative.

It was mentioned that perhaps we should stop focusing on what national governments will do and focus on other matters. However, national governments and parliamentarians will play a very important role in selling this because, as Deputy O’Rourke stated, citizens will not instantly be out celebrating this on the streets. They will have to be persuaded. We are all in the business of persuading them because it is in all of our interest to try to ensure that citizens feel more engaged with the European Union and with the decisions being made at European level that affect our day to day lives.

I understand why people feel cautious. Some people here are concerned that perhaps it will lead to unrealistic expectations. Expectations will have to be managed but we must start by approaching this with a degree of enthusiasm and seeing its potential. We are very good at speaking about the need to innovate and be creative. In this instance, it will be quite a challenge to come up with a mechanism that will work in 27 member states, engage citizens, use electronic media and try to engage younger people. It will not be agreed overnight but how we approach it and a degree of enthusiasm on the part of the people to whom most citizens listen, namely their national parliamentarians, will be important.

I hope we will all approach this by considering how we can make it work. Already, organised civil society throughout the European Union tries to influence policy. Those groups which are already quite well-organised will be delighted with this. The challenge for us is to try to involve other citizens who up to now have not really been that engaged with debates at European level. We need to be as positive as we can be.

Electronic media will have an important role. Barack Obama’s campaign has been mentioned. He tapped into the potential to communicate with voters individually and personally. It seems to me that the success of his campaign across the huge continent of the United States offers us hope that this initiative can be successful and can reach people. It will not be straightforward, however. We will have to examine some of the problems mentioned by other speakers. It is possible that people will get roped in to signing up electronically to an initiative without having any understanding of what it is about.

I am strongly in favour of allowing people aged 16 and over to participate in the citizens’ initiative. Young people are falling away from formal politics. The citizens’ initiative does not offer 16 year olds the right to vote, as to do so would interfere in the sovereign matters of individual member states. However, it encourages them to get interested in policy debates that are taking place at EU level and to lend their support to new policy initiatives that are emerging. I hope we can continue to put pressure on the Commission to consider including those aged 16 and over in anything that is agreed under the citizens’ initiative.

I am delighted that European Movement Ireland is as positive as it is about this initiative. I hope we can all be part of trying to make it work and rolling it out across the Union over the coming year or so.

Senator Coffey spoke to the Minister about what constituted good law. Good law is law that is not undermined by the creating of significant exemptions or exceptions. It is about applying the same standards to everybody and not allowing for self-regulation where it is not appropriate to do so. This legislation is informed by the principles of animal protection. It puts strong provisions in place to ensure dogs, in particular dogs bred in establishments, will be treated humanely. That is to be welcomed. Therefore, the Bill is very good law.

I am personally very happy to see the Bill introduced because in my constituency, as most people will be aware, there was a high profile case in June 2007 in which a puppy farm had been discovered in south Wicklow in which 76 dogs, many of them pups, had been kept in absolutely appalling conditions. Some 16 of the dogs had to be put down. The health problems found among the dogs rescued included flea and lice infestations, mange, cataracts, overgrown and diseased teeth, bone problems, ear infections, mites, mammary tumours, dietary problems and so on. The puppies had been housed in dreadful conditions with no access to food, water or light. The case was not an isolated one. I know of other incidents identified in recent years in counties Down and Carlow and elsewhere.

The breeding of dogs on the cheap is a grim and shameful industry. Obviously, the objective is to produce cheap, poor quality, pure bred dogs, mass produced by the hundred, usually in cages and kept in appalling conditions. One journalist referred to it as pet production, battery cage style, a very apt way to describe it. The intention is to sell on the dogs on pure bred designer puppies. In a business that is tax free these activities have made it an extremely lucrative industry that provides high profit margins for those involved in breeding dogs. It is estimated that pups are now being sold for approximately €400 and that up to 1,000 puppies a week are exported from the Republic. Unfortunately, most farmed puppies are sold over the counter in pet shops or through advertisements on websites or in newspapers, in which only the mobile number of the owner is given, with the result that the buyer never becomes aware of the appalling breeding conditions in which the puppy was produced.

There is a clear need for licensing and inspection measures to tackle cruelty on dog breeding farms, to bring proper policing measures to these establishments and to provide the necessary powers for the relevant authorities and agencies to ensure they can take action. This legislation is part of the process of bringing Irish animal health and welfare legislation into the 21st century. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, referred to other animal welfare legislation that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in the process of preparing. Major strides forward in animal health and welfare protection will be made when that legislation is introduced.

The Bill gives a legislative basis for the regulation of dog breeding establishments. As others have said, many dog breeding establishments throughout the country operate in an extremely responsible way, which must be recognised and acknowledged. These establishments have nothing to fear from the implementation of this legislation. I acknowledge that the Minister, Deputy Gormley, in drawing up legislation attempted to exempt certain organisations from any undue financial burden that might be presented to them, but this legislation is fair and provides an important legislative basis that will allow, as others have said, for subsequent regulations to be introduced in a number of key areas.

The legislation provides for an increase in the dog licence fee. This will go some way towards resourcing a system that is currently seriously under-resourced. It is proposed to increase the licence fee from €12.70 to €20. The Minister referred to the fact that An Post has increased its administrative fee to €3.50. This will leave only €9.20 per licence fee collected by local authorities to provide for the funding of the dog warden service. In 2008 the income derived from the dog licence fee for all local authorities was €2.6 million, while their combined expenditure on dog-related activities was €5.7 million, which left a shortfall of more than €3 million. Increasing the licence fee to €20 will increase to €4.1 million the income derived from the licence fee for local authorities, which will reduce the shortfall to only to €1.6 million, but there will still be a shortfall.

The legislation, to which the Minister did justice in his outline of it, introduces the need to register breeding establishments with the local authority. Existing dog breeding establishments will have three months from the commencement of the Act to register or otherwise they will be in breach of it. The legislation also requires minimum standards to be adhered to in such establishments. Within nine months of the commencement of the Act local authorities must arrange to carry out an inspection of registered establishments which, in the meantime, can continue to operate.

The legislation also requires the introduction of microchipping of all dogs, to which other speakers referred, commencing with those resident in dog breeding establishments. To enable the making of effective regulations in these areas, this legislation was required.

Some Members opposite referred to shortcomings in the consultation that occurred on the preparation of the legislation. I have no doubt the Minister’s response will make clear the extent of such consultation. In drawing up the Bill and regulations, I am aware that the Minister’s Department consulted the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the veterinary expertise available to local authorities through the City and County Managers’ Association. The draft guidelines the Minister supports are based on advice from the Irish Society for Protection of Cruelty to Animals. Others consulted included the Hunting Association of Ireland and Animals Need a Voice in Legislation or the ANVIL group. In addition, the working group that was set up received numerous submissions as part of its responsibility to prepare recommendations on the management of dog breeding establishments for the Minister.

I recommend this legislation to the House. It is long overdue but good legislation. This Bill provides a sound legislative basis for the regulations that need to be introduced in key areas. I draw the Minister’s attention to a submission I received from the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the past week or two comprising some last minute proposals it put forward to the final draft of the legislation. One proposal is a suggestion on the age at which dogs should be microchipped and another calls on the Minister to ensure that the guidelines on the operation of dog breeding establishments are put in place prior to or on the enactment of this Bill. The guidelines, to which the society referred, are on the duty of care to animals, including dogs and dog breeding establishments. I commend the passing of this legislation to the House.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the EU citizens’ initiative because it was highlighted during the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign as a very positive development. The Lisbon treaty contains many provisions that make the concept of European citizenship more meaningful. It is important, therefore, that we are seen to act on them quickly. The citizens’ initiative will take time to introduce, but it will engage people and make them realise that while there is a democratic deficit, of which I have been critical for a long time, it is possible for citizens to influence the decisions and legislation emerging from the European Union and that we are putting in a place a mechanism for doing so. Even though it is important that we do this quickly, it is also important that we think it through properly because it is quite ambitious. We are talking about a transnational democracy, 27 member states – a number which will possibly grow – with different electoral systems and political cultures and so on.

I attended the meeting last night in European Union House addressed by Proinsias De Rossa, MEP, Professor Brigid Laffan and so on. It was very interesting. Professor Laffan spoke about unintended consequences. That is always a difficulty with anything new and innovative that is being launched. I have no doubt that in regard to the citizens’ initiative, there will be unintended consequences. For that reason it probably would be a good idea, within the time constraints, to set up a task force consisting of parliamentarians but also civil servants and representatives of civil society, particularly those involved in social networking. The points being made about the collection of signatures and so on and on-line communication in relation to the initiative are important. We must consider the most practical way of organising signatures in support of a particular initiative. We should have representatives and persons who understand how the social networking media work brainstorming and stress-testing the concept to assess what might and might not work and identify potential pitfalls in what is being proposed. I recommend that such a task force be set up rather quickly.

The Commission’s Green Paper poses many practical questions in regard to the citizens’ initiative concerning the collection of signatures, the number of member states involved and so on. I accepted the idea that signatures should come from at least one quarter of the member states, but in the debate last night the point was made persuasively that if that was to be the case, given the number of member states, one could end up with what Professor Laffan called a geographical sub-system, under which a small number of member states from the north or south of the European Union could come together to bring forward an initiative that represented particularly the interests of that part of the Union. By increasing the required number of member states to one third, one could get around this issue because it is unlikely that an initiative would be brought forward that represented only the interests of a particular section of member states or citizens within them. Therefore, it would be worth looking at the idea of raising the threshold to one third of member states.

It is also important, even though there will be well over 1 million signatures in support of most citizens’ initiatives, that there be a sponsoring organisation because there will be much liaison between the Commission and those sponsoring an initiative in trying to define terms and clarify various issues. If that is the case, the issues to which Proinsias De Rossa referred such as making a declaration of interests and so on could be easily established and, perhaps, form the agenda of the organisation spearheading the campaign. I recommend that this be part of the way the process will works.

In the debate last night there was talk about admissibility which people at this meeting have referred to as registration. It is important that early in the process there be an opportunity for those who want to get involved in a citizens’ initiative to put a wording together and submit it to a body which would determine whether it was acceptable. There is a danger, once this process is launched, that people will believe they can submit citizens’ initiatives on any issue. Obviously, there will be clear limits. It has been pointed out that initiatives must be in keeping with the objectives set out in the treaty. The early determination of this is important to ensure people will not go to the trouble of organising campaigns and collecting signatures only to be told at the end of that process that their petition is inadmissible.

National authorities will have an important role to play. The verification of signatures is probably the most important work they will do. If there is no agreement in advance on the part of national governments that they are prepared to take on this role and that there will be funding to meet the practical resource implications, the initiative will not work as intended. As I mentioned, there is a need to look at the electronic collection of signatures. It will be a missed opportunity if we do not factor this in in the way the process will work.

Reference has been made to 16 years old and whether those below voting age across member states can participate. I certainly would be in favour of this, as we have a problem in engaging young people. We are not talking about giving them the right to vote, but we are extending to them an opportunity to influence the legislation which emerges from the institutions of the European Union. It would be a good way of engaging young people who are very active through the social media and so on with the European Union and politics in general. This issue should be looked at.

The question of the involvement of the Diaspora is pertinent. What is to be done about Irish people living in another member state or Polish people living in Ireland and so on who want to be part of a citizens’ initiative? We have to look carefully at this issue. In general, I welcome the citizens’ initiative. The more we can raise the level of public awareness of the process in the coming months in advance of the submission date the better because we want people to start availing of the initiative process as soon as it is agreed. December 2010 is the proposed date of adoption of the regulation.

I regret only 45 minutes has been provided for the debate on this motion. As the Minister of State is required to open and close the debate, this leaves little time for representatives of all political parties to make statements on this important body, the structure of which will have serious implications for internal security policy within the European Union. I believe 45 minutes is a short time within which we must discuss the establishment and remit of the committee.

Under protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty, Ireland has discretion to opt-in, in so far as it sees fit, to the communitarian approach to justice and home affairs, which is to be welcomed. We have provided ourselves with much flexibility in this regard. I note the incoming Spanish Presidency has stated it will give priority to the development of internal security strategy which will come within the remit of the new committee. It is important that Ireland is from the outset a member of the new structure when the Spanish Presidency is developing policy in the area of internal security. We are told the main objective of COSI will be to facilitate, promote and strengthen co-ordination of the operational actions between EU member states in the field of internal security, including police and customs co-operation, external border protection and judicial co-operation in criminal matters relevant to operational co-operation in the field of internal security. We are told also that the committee will regularly report on its activities to the Council and shall keep the European and national parliaments informed.

COSI will be responsible for evaluating the general direction and efficiency of operational co-operation and will also have the responsibility of identifying possible shortcomings and adopting recommendations to address them. COSI, with the Political and Security Committee, will be mandated to assist the Council to implement the solidarity clause which provides that the EU shall be able to mobilise all the instruments at its disposal to help a member state that is the object of a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster, which is an important power. It is important that Ireland, because of its unique position as a neutral state within the European Union, ensures that the implementation of the solidarity clause is worked out in a manner that is acceptable to us and the values which underpin our neutrality.

I have a number of concerns to which I hope the Minister of State can respond. Several interested parties have raised with me the composition of COSI. Will the committee merely be advised by agencies such as security and intelligence agencies like Britain’s MI5? In other words, will these bodies be members of the committee or will the committee merely be advised by them? Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to that issue. On the European and national parliaments being kept informed of the proceedings of this committee, will the level of information provided to the parliaments make meaningful scrutiny possible? As far as I am aware no provisions have been set out in terms of scrutiny and accountability. Can the Minister of State assure us that there will be public access to its proceedings and documents? My third concern relates to the concept of internal security. Members will be aware that this concept is much wider than policing, judicial co-operation and immigration. It encompasses all matters relating to the maintenance of law and public order and to civil and military capabilities. Obviously there is concern in regard to the incredibly strong link that will be required between internal security within the EU and external security. Can the Minister of State offer any reassurances with regard to the definition of that concept and the remit of the committee as a result?

At a time when the new EU 2020 strategy is being drawn up there is a sense of optimism and concern that the same fate might await that new strategy as affected the Lisbon strategy which, despite its stated objective to ensure the European economy became the most competitive and dynamic economy internationally, was seen to be largely a failure. Will the Minister reassure us that the new strategy, EU 2020, has a better chance of success? The Lisbon strategy was being implemented at a time when the global economy was prospering and the individual economies of member states were in growth. Should we be any more hopeful that the EU 2020 strategy can be successful at a time when most of the EU member states are in economic recession?

Citizens’ rights and freedoms were mentioned by the incoming Presidency as a priority. I notice the European Parliament asked the Council to engage in inter-institutional dialogue on the new legal framework required for access to documents, which is very close to the heart of many citizens. The Lisbon treaty changed the situation by broadening the scope of the requirement for access to documents to include the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, Europol and Eurojust. There is a short timeframe within which the new regulations on access to documents have to be drawn up and the European Parliament is seeking immediate inter-institutional dialogue on this, particularly on the principles that will surround any restrictions on access to documents. Will the Minister, Deputy Martin, and the Government support this immediate inter-institutional dialogue?

The Minister mentioned the situation in Haiti and it is true that there has been a strong international response, albeit a little belated. The United States is seen as playing a very strong role in this. Unfortunately, the European Union has not been mentioned and there has been no strong European response while individual member states are doing their very best and the Irish Government has made its contribution to the relief and humanitarian effort. Does the Minister feel there is need to operationalise some of the new provisions of the Lisbon treaty, particularly with regard to the formation of the EU voluntary humanitarian aid corps? In a future humanitarian crisis it would be very welcome to see the European Union being able to mobilise the same type of civilian resources as the US and other major powers. What steps can be taken in this regard?

The committee has organised a meeting with a number of Irish MEPs tomorrow to discuss the citizen’s initiative. A public consultation process is in train on this at present. Will the Department play a role in raising public awareness about the citizen’s initiative and seek public input into its design and workings?

Senator Déirdre de Búrca:  I raised the question of access to documents requested by the European Parliament. What will the Minister do in respect of this matter?

Deputy Micheál Martin:  We will examine that in terms of the European Parliament. Certainly, we support inter-institutional dialogue in terms of access to documents.

The Bill is timely because there is an increasing convergence between telecoms and broadcasting resulting in significant innovation in these premium rate services. There are subscription media services on mobile phones, interactive gaming on television and even entire television channels based on premium rate calling. There are also significant business applications for premium rate services. In Ireland we are all familiar with unique prefixes relating to the premium rate services: 1530, 1540, 1550, 1559, 1560, 1570 and 1580. The 1559 prefix is dedicated solely to adult services and can only be accessed with a PIN issued by a network operator. Calls to premium rate services cost more than ordinary telephone calls and each prefix has a specific call cost. The role of regulation is important. Others have referred to this. One of its important purposes is to prevent consumer harm, in particular to ensure clear and accurate pricing information is provided along with honest advertising and service content. This Bill will accomplish this by ensuring the new regulatory system includes those strong consumer provisions.

In earlier days it was much more common for premium numbers to be used fraudulently. Computer criminals have used premium rate numbers to defraud unsuspecting Internet users. As we know, many more children and young people are using the Internet, which makes them vulnerable to this type of fraud. One particular scheme involved encouraging users to download a programme known as a “dialler” which surreptitiously dialled a premium rate number, accumulating charges on the user’s phone bill without his or her knowledge. Another premium rate scam involved television programming that encouraged young children to dial a number, relying on the assumption that they would be unaware of the charges to be incurred.

In Ireland, premium rate telephone services have been regulated by Regtel, an independent non-profit company formed in 1995. It operates through a strict code of practice with which all service providers in Ireland must comply. Regtel has been required to assure consumer protection when using national or international premium rate services and has put in place procedures to deal with consumer complaints that arise from the use of these services.

The Bill provides for the transfer of the function of the regulation of premium rate services from Regtel to the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg. It also provides for certain other amendments to the overall communications framework. The transfer of the regulatory function to ComReg will ensure an effective regime that addresses the present market environment is established and this is in accordance with Government policy on agency rationalisation. The legislation enables ComReg to license the premium rate services by specifying the classes or types of premium rate services that require to be licensed, the terms and conditions that may be attached, and the information that premium rate service providers must provide to ComReg upon request. Significantly, it also deals with the issue of offences and penalties. The Bill provides the necessary investigative powers to ComReg to ensure the conditions of a licence are being complied with. ComReg will be empowered to revoke, amend or suspend a PRS licence with immediate effect, if necessary, where it finds that the holder has failed to comply with a licence condition. It also provides for summary and indictable offences relating to the provision of unlicensed premium rate services and summary offences for overcharging for services or charging for services not supplied. A service provider aggrieved by a decision of ComReg to refuse to grant or revoke, amend or suspend a PRS licence will have the right of appeal to the Circuit Court.

Significantly, too, the Bill provides that ComReg will, in consultation with the industry and other interested parties, prepare and publish a code of practice to be followed by premium rate service providers. Compliance with the code of practice will be a condition of the licence.

I have mentioned that the legislation makes some other changes to the communications infrastructure. Having been a member of a local authority, I particularly appreciate the fact that this Bill amends Part 5 of the principal Act of 2002 to facilitate the National Roads Authority in making ducting infrastructure on national roads and motorways available for fibre roll-out. This will facilitate the roll-out of fibre throughout the country to provide broadband connectivity, one of the priorities the Minister has emphasised his Department will pursue. This legislation will facilitate us in developing the communications infrastructure which will help achieve that objective. Under the principal Act, local authorities were the sole consent-giving authority for local, regional and national roads as well as motorways. This amendment in the legislation before the House designates the National Roads Authority as an authority for national roads, which includes motorways. This will enable the National Roads Authority to make available to network operators access to the ducting on national roads and motorways to facilitate the roll-out of high-speed fibre networks in the regions.

For all these reasons I commend the legislation and I commend the Minister on its introduction. I happily support the Bill.

I have to hand it to the Green Party’s Government colleagues, Fianna Fáil, which has supported us in our efforts since we came into government. It agreed to sign up to the Green elements of the programme for Government even though the issues in question did not form a core part of its political agenda. Fianna Fáil is supporting the Green Party and making it possible for these important changes to occur. In the future, people will look back and say that the current Government introduced important changes, some of which I would like to mention. We have committed ourselves to a 3% annual reduction in carbon emissions. We have introduced carbon legislation to enshrine those emission reductions in law soon. A carbon budget is delivered by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government around the same time as the main budget. This shadow budget, in effect, makes clear the impact and implications of the main budget for our carbon performance. The carbon budget will assume greater importance as we tie ourselves into legally binding commitments at national, European and international levels. It will help us to keep track of how we are doing in relation to the targets we have set for ourselves.

The Government has changed the vehicle registration tax system so that it favours the purchase of environmentally friendly cars. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has introduced building regulations to ensure new homes and buildings to be constructed in this country are much more energy efficient. That will lead to reductions in carbon emissions. By introducing the insulation grants, greener homes, home energy savings and warmer homes schemes, we have created new jobs at a time when many jobs in the construction sector have been lost. The media teased the Green Party for its focus on energy-efficient light bulbs, which is another example of a policy that will help Ireland to meet the targets to which it has signed up and legislatively tied itself into. Our planning legislation is being improved. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has introduced the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 to ensure there is much more consistency between what we say we are doing at national level and the local planning decisions of local councillors, for example on the rezoning of lands. We are continuing to prioritise public transport. The transport sector contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Public transport is much more energy-efficient and much cleaner. We are prioritising public transport. All of these things are important.

If Ireland wants to enjoy what is known as first mover advantage, it should willingly continue to make the essential and necessary changes to which the international community will sign up over the next decade or so. We need to develop a strong, clean and green economy in this country. We should use our membership of the EU to influence the kind of legislation that is emerging from the Commission. That will put us in a favourable position to benefit from the many economic opportunities that will arise in the years to come and give us a head start on others. Initiatives like the services directive, which will be fully implemented at EU level later this month, will allow Irish companies that are to the fore and have developed their ideas to provide services freely throughout the Union and to enjoy great commercial and business opportunities.

I am very happy we have had a chance to speak about climate change. I hope the commitment of Senators to tackling climate change will be followed through when the time comes to adopt policies. The decisions we will have to make about policy changes may be controversial in the short term, but in the longer term they will position Ireland well in the context of the green economy.

It is unfortunate that my colleague, the Minister of Sate, Deputy Sargent, has left the Chamber, because I wanted to pay him tribute. His tenure as the Minister of State with responsibility for food and horticulture in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been important and timely. It is clear that, in terms of agriculture generally and in the agrifood sector, we need a new vision of how to adapt agriculture to face new and serious challenges. We need new thinking. Some of us are stuck on the same treadmill. I listened to the calls by some Senators. On the one hand, they tell us not to do anything about climate change, such as implementing a carbon tax, and, on the other hand, they ask the Government to stop the flooding and recognise the latter’s appalling impact on farmers and so on. We must realise that we need to tackle the root causes of these problems. We cannot continue to throw money away in an attempt to convince ourselves that the old model of farming can continue and that we will somehow get over everything. We need to introduce new thinking into the sector, which I would argue has been achieved by my colleague, the Minister of State. In the little over two years that he has spent in the Department, he has put in place and is in the process of putting in place new structures, schemes and so on to encourage the agricultural sector to make the transition to a more sustainable model of farming, which will be essential. He has committed himself publicly and in the programme for Government to the growth and development of the organics sector.

Many of the mainstream political parties still view organic agriculture as being a niche area, an add-on to conventional farming. Much of the major international research highlights the fact that it is a central and growing area of food production and consumption across the world. A food island like Ireland could exploit many commercial opportunities, giving it a head start in developing itself as a location committed to organic farming. In the programme for Government, which was agreed a little over two years ago, we set a target of converting a minimum of 5% of acreage to organic farmland by 2012. I am happy to say that, despite many of the challenges facing the new sector, we have converted approximately 1.25% of farmland to organic and the rate of interest being expressed by those signing up to the main organic farming scheme is encouraging. There is every reason to believe that, by the end of the Government’s term, we will have reached what was an ambitious target for a new sector.

The organic food production and processing sector is one of the few areas showing steady growth in Ireland and in the countries to which we send most of our conventional produce. Ireland is uniquely suited to organic farming, as we are a food producing island and have a famous clean, green image. The European public in particular has grown concerned about the impact of intensive farming on biodiversity and the environment. At the same time, farmers’ incomes are coming under pressure from cheap imports. Farmers are also under relentless pressure from retail multiples to accept less for their produce. This is an issue we must address. There is an increase in the concentration of power in the hands of a few large supermarket chains. It is not peculiar to Ireland; it is an international phenomenon which has fundamentally changed the balance of market negotiating power in the food chain. It is a factor, although not the only one, contributing to the declining share of prices received by farmers.

The Minister of State is very clear that competition alone cannot act as the sole mechanism to maintain efficient markets. The careful and sensitive use of market management measures can help to maintain balance in the market, where appropriate. The use of such mechanisms can assist in the provision of fair returns for producers. The Minister of State believes there is a need at EU level to give urgent thought to ensuring markets function well and unfair practices are prevented. Because the agrifood industry is hugely important to Ireland and the European Union, the Union must safeguard its production base to meet future demand for food, feed and bioenergy. Retailers must strike a reasonable balance between granting value for customers and giving it to suppliers and producers. A balance between all stakeholders, including suppliers, producers, retailers and consumers, may be difficult to achieve but the Minister of State and the Government are committed to working towards achieving these mechanisms at EU level.

As intensive conventional farming becomes less profitable and farmers look for alternative ways to make their enterprises pay, they must consider alternatives such as organic farming. They also need to look at conventional outlets because of the pressure exerted by the larger retail multiples. They will have to look at alternative channels, including selling their produce directly to consumers in farmers’ markets and farm shops and through co-operatives and distribution systems independent of supermarket control. In addition, farming must become more diversified, producing more varieties of food but also fuel, building and clothing materials. I refer to the fledgling hemp industry which appears to hold out great promise for farmers. Hemp is an extremely versatile material that can be used in food products, building and clothing materials and so on. Teagasc has done a certain amount of research in this regard. It is innovative and a move we should consider more closely and support.

I again pay tribute to the Minister of State for the work he has done in many areas. He has supported farmers’ markets and helped to ensure local authorities support and provide the facilities such markets need. He mentioned the growth in demand for organic food. The Irish organic retail market was estimated to be worth €104 million in 2008, compared to €66 million in 2006 and €38 million in 2003. There was annual growth of 40% in 2007 and 2008 which compares very favourably with the figures for previous years.

There are several issues I would like to discuss, one being the threat to organic agriculture posed by genetic modification and GMOs. However, I do not have time to go into that matter in great detail, suffice it to say the Minister of State has introduced a voluntary labelling scheme. I agree with Senator Phelan that country of origin labelling is important. The Minister of State has championed this issue at EU level within the Council of Ministers, as well as at national level. It is very important that people know where their produce originates. When the pigmeat crisis happened, the issue of provenance became very important. The Minister of State intends to continue to lobby at EU level to ensure country of origin labelling is introduced but among EU member states we are supposed only by Italy.

I, again, welcome the attempts made to promote organic produce by the Minister of State. We must look in a new way at how we can make farming livelihoods more sustainable. In this regard, it appears the organic sector holds great potential for farmers.

The Minister and others have mentioned the Middle East peace process. I share the same frustration as others. We seem to be saying the same things about the Middle East peace process and the situation in Gaza in meeting after meeting. Does the Minister believe the conclusions to be adopted by the Council at this meeting will change in any way or will there be any shift in the position of the EU? There appears to be virtual paralysis at the moment and unless the EU injects a new dynamic into the diplomatic process, it looks as if we shall see this continue. To what extent does he believe that there is a willingness on the part of the EU to separate itself somewhat from the position of the US and inject a new dynamic into the Middle East peace process? Does the Minister agree that the lifting of the blockade on Gaza should be the priority, particularly given that this is absolutely necessary if there is to be any type of social and economic reconstruction following the attack by Israel on Gaza last December?

I have raised the issue with the Minister before about the free trade agreement that is being negotiated by the EU with Colombia. I am very concerned that the free trade negotiations appear to be continuing. I recommend that the Minister should scrutinise the document produced recently by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Trading Away Human Rights, as regards why the EU-Colombia free trade agreement is a step in the wrong direction. A very important point made by this document is the fact that the free trade agreements that were being negotiated by the US, Canada and Norway with Colombia have effectively been suspended because of human rights concerns. The EU seems to be the only block that is pursuing this free trade agreement and destroying what appears to be an international consensus on the issue of the importance of Colombia demonstrating that it is living up to its human rights and trade union obligations.

This committee will be discussing the new scrutiny role of national parliaments under the responsibilities and powers we have assumed under the Lisbon treaty. What are the Minister’s views in this regard and has his Department any ideas as regards how we might strengthen the European dimension of the business of both Houses of the Oireachtas? We are at an important point. This committee is looking at how it can play its part, as is the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny, in strengthening the European dimension, but this is about much more than the role of the two European committees and I hope the Minister will elaborate on his ideas in this regard.