The committee has to consider a couple of housekeeping items before it concludes its business. The stability of the financial markets is one of the issues to be considered at the Council meeting that will take place on 13 and 14 March next. The Irish Banking Federation and the Financial Regulator have responded to the draft Council conclusions. Perhaps it might be no harm for the committee to issue a short response with a view to ensuring that financial institutions throughout Europe — and throughout the world, in so far as the EU has any influence in that regard — do not follow procedures which militate against the interests of consumers and member states. The repercussions of the unwise lending that has recently taken place throughout the world have not been in anybody's interests. I propose that the committee should draft a short and simple response based on the concerns of our constituents. Is it agreed that we get our resident expert to co-ordinate a short submission to the Financial Regulator and the financial institutions?
Business of Joint Committee.
Does the Chairman refer to Irish financial institutions?
Yes, I am talking about the Irish Banking Federation.
Excellent. It is very important. We have to acknowledge the key role played by the European Central Bank in the global financial sector, which is quite precarious at present. It acts in a strong manner to protect us.
Good. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is there any other business? I do not mind discussing such business in public session, as we have nothing to be afraid of.
The Wilton Park conference on Turkey's accession to the EU will be held in Istanbul between 31 March and 3 April. The western Balkans will be an issue in that context. There are some common interests coming from that quarter. It is important. We have previously agreed that six members will attend the conference. We are over-subscribed at present, as eight members have expressed an interest in attending. The committee secretariat has received communication from the relevant authorities that only three members will be allowed to travel to Istanbul. I suggest that a three-member delegation would be somewhat truncated. I do not doubt that some countries, such as the Balkan states, will send vast and major delegations. Do members agree to allow the secretariat to engage in further discussions on the matter? We had agreed that six members would travel. I am sure it will be possible for the secretariat to work out a compromise, unless members would like to take some other approach. We agreed previously that six members would go.
I recommend that we go ahead with the group. There may be withdrawals in due course.
Is that agreed?
It is important that those who attend the conference are officially accredited. If it is decided that the delegation should comprise no more than three or four members of the committee, it would not be wise to exceed the number that is acceptable.
It is presumed that there will be a number of withdrawals and that some places will arise in that event. We do not intend to exceed the proposed number. It is obvious that members of the committee have an interest in this important subject, which was originally raised by Deputy Mulcahy. Is it agreed to allow the secretariat to liaise with the relevant authorities and then get back to the committee? We will see how it goes. The conference lasts for just three days. The cost of the trip will be revised downwards in accordance with the new arrangements.
A delegation from the Dutch Parliament's European and foreign affairs committees will visit Dublin on Monday, 14 April 2008. The delegation has requested an informal meeting with members of this committee and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs on the evening of 14 April. Perhaps a working dinner can be arranged, although it might be difficult to get members to attend on a Monday evening. I suggest that we try to make ourselves available.
I thought we were going to Limerick that day.
No.
Is it off?
We are going to Limerick on 17 April. Can we get a number of people——
I thought we were going to Galway on 17 April. I am a little confused. According to my diary, we will be in Limerick on 14 April and in Galway on 17 April.
We will be in Dublin on Monday, 7 April. We will be in Galway on 17 April. We will be in Cork on Thursday, 24 April. We will be in Dundalk on 1 May. We will be in Athlone on Monday, 5 May. We will be in Limerick on 15 May. We are free on the night of Monday, 14 April. It would be helpful if members could make themselves available to eat for Ireland on that night. Those of us who cannot afford to eat for Ireland will have to fast. I would be grateful if a number of members were to attend this important discussion with their Dutch counterparts, which will touch on some of the things we have debated today. Will members liaise with the secretariat in that regard?
A private meeting with members of the committee on the Lisbon reform treaty has been arranged so that members of this committee can prepare for the questions we will be asked when we go on the road. When voters ask for our views on the conclusions which are mentioned in various articles of the treaty, we will have to be prepared to engage with such matters. We will not be able to deal with every item that is raised in an absolute and conclusive way. It is in the interests of the committee and the referendum that is taking place, and that members have an idea of the nature and implications of the questions they are asked. The Minister was able to give a clear answer to the question asked by Senator Quinn a few minutes ago. If members of the committee are available, they can avail of a short session between 11.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. tomorrow.
Why is the briefing session taking place on a Thursday? I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which is meeting tomorrow. The meeting, which was first arranged six weeks ago, has had to be postponed on three occasions due to clashes with other meetings.
The National Forum on Europe is meeting at 11 a.m. tomorrow.
We will have to re-arrange the briefing session. This committee's policy adviser, Ronan Gargan, who gives me sound advice at all times, will speak at tomorrow's briefing. He is very good on this subject.
I would like to hear Mr. Gargan.
Members will be glad to know that I do not always agree with him. I am sure he will be glad to hear that too. I am consistently in his face. Peter Doyle, who is our resident consultant, will also be at the briefing when the time comes. Perhaps the secretariat will consult with members about re-arranging the meeting for next week.
Have speakers been agreed for the public meetings the joint committee will hold? I understand the format will be to invite speakers for and against the treaty, after which members and others will join the debate. At our press conference, we were asked whether the joint committee would invite people who have adopted a position of opposing the Lisbon treaty in order that they can address their issues of concern with committee members. It would be of benefit to do this before members go out on the road as it would allow us to hear and prepare for the arguments.
The Senator is correct that it would be beneficial to have a discussion among committee members to address the reservations opponents hold. We should arrange the meeting for next week, possibly on Tuesday. The secretariat will contact members.
I propose holding the meeting on Wednesday or Thursday of next week.
We have not finalised a list of nominated speakers, although I have a list of people who are willing to speak. They will answer questions and three or four speakers who have been nominated have indicated they will be available. We will have to finalise the list quickly because the first meeting will be in three weeks.
Will committee members be consulted?
Yes.
We should agree a template for the first meeting and use it for subsequent meetings.
I would prefer if we had a meeting with full representation of the "No" lobby. I do not know whether members wish to go down that road but I strongly advise that we adopt such an approach.
I was very disappointed and, as a democratically elected politician, I felt undermined and embarrassed at our press conference. Having achieved a consensus on how to deal with an issue, one member of the joint committee decided to have a minority public view at the conclusion of a committee presentation during a press conference, chaired by the Chairman. I am sorry Senator Quinn is not present because I would like to deal with this issue. Democracy has never worked on that basis. We believe in reaching a conclusion by a majority point of view. Our conclusion was based on consensus and the intervention at the press conference reflected an unfair and opportunistic approach, to say the least. Fortunately, its ramifications are not as significant as some may have hoped.
The joint committee should prepare a document for all members detailing the treaties passed since 1957, for example, the Single European Act and Amsterdam treaty; the protocols included at Ireland's insistence; the protections we secured on the pro-life issue, military neutrality and so on, and the reasons they were inserted; the number of times the veto has been used; the options available once the treaty, please God, has been passed; and what other impacts the treaty will have. It should include simple facts that members would have available to them when we have a debate with other great people who have a reservoir of information available to them, most of it based on phantoms and quicksand. This would enable us to give de facto responses at public meetings.
I agree.
I seek clarity on the format of the meetings. What type of individuals will speak at them? I understand members, as parliamentarians, would address members of the public, articulate our views and allow others to articulate their views. If we have a balance of spokespersons who support and oppose the Lisbon treaty, how would this approach differ from that taken by the National Forum on Europe?
The answer is simple. With the joint committee's approval, I propose that members play a leading role at the meetings and we have one guest speaker who would give a general address. I presume the majority of those who have addressed the joint committee have been positively disposed towards the European Union. The question at issue is whether we should have a second guest speaker who would not be a member of the joint committee and would speak from the floor. The problem is that our first preference guest speaker will not be a member of the joint committee. Do we want two people to speak at the public meetings, perhaps for ten minutes each?
Will they both be on the same side of the argument?
No.
I am not sure. Is our mandate such that we must have speakers from the other side?
My understanding of our mandate is that we must take on board differing views. As elected Members of Parliament, we can come to a conclusion, as Deputy Costello has argued, and make recommendations based on the information we have gleaned from our work.
We will have the same speakers as the National Forum on Europe if we are to present the "Yes" and "No" sides. Would it not be more appropriate to have one guest speaker who would give a balanced presentation of the contents of the Lisbon reform treaty rather than having an opponent and supporter of the treaty speak? After the guest speaker has concluded, the meeting would then be open for debate.
I have no problem with the Deputy's proposal.
Would it not be important also that each party put forward one speaker to show a solid political operation? All parties are represented on the joint committee and each should be allowed to contribute for about five minutes. We should also give every member an opportunity to shine his or her torch, especially when the meeting is held in his or her area.
There will be ample opportunity for members to speak at several meetings. The difficulty will be ensuring members are available to speak at the various locations. We will try to take the approach suggested. Is it agreed to have a speaker outline the issues in a neutral presentation?
I support Deputy Costello's recommendation.
It is a good idea.
I support Deputy Treacy. Deputy Costello's proposal is a good, impartial way to handle the meetings and deliver our objective. It is also important to have clear political input in order that people see the role being played by the political parties. It would minimise the impact of the opinions of members if their contributions were made as the meetings develop.
That is agreed. The secretariat will liaise with individual members to identify whom they would regard as suitable speakers. Is that agreed?
I suggest a document be drafted detailing the locations and dates of meetings, proposed guest speakers and a proposed representative of each of the political parties for each area. Once we have the draft, we will make any changes necessary depending on who is available for the various meetings. The guest speaker and political representatives should answer questions from the audience.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Rather than focusing on the entire treaty at every meeting, perhaps we could focus on themes. It seems that certain aspects of the treaty are not highlighted as much as others, for example, the energy aspect which I mentioned today. While the remarks from the floor will probably cover all issues, we might focus on one or two themes at each of the meetings.
The presumption is that would happen in any event.
I am not sure that the guest speaker could be asked to speak about climate change. There will be a different audience at every meeting, be it in Galway, Athlone or Limerick.
That is correct.
What is required, therefore, is a guest speaker who will present the important issues pertaining to the treaty in their entirety. The individual members of parties can focus on different issues.
That is what is intended. Is that agreed? Agreed. If the committee is to produce a final report before the referendum takes place, it is essential that we engage directly with the people who, for whatever reason, are not in favour of the treaty. We need to ask them why they are against it. It is imperative we do so. At least one member of the committee will be on the "no" side, as far as we can determine. Let us hear the views of a representative group. It is immaterial whether it is elected or selected. It represents a view and whether it is broadly held does not make any difference. If we are to produce a report that is to be made available to the people prior to making a decision on a very important referendum, we should listen to those who are not in favour of the treaty and either accept or dismiss their case.
The Chairman has made me change my mind on this issue. At the outset, I was opposed to having these people come in to try to infiltrate the positive minds of Members of Parliament. Nevertheless, I believe that to ensure balance and to justify our existence, we should hear all sides of the argument. I suggest we devote one day to this and give the invited groups seven days' notice. We could deal with as many of the groups as possible on the day in question and include their views in a chapter of the report.
Is that agreed? Agreed.