JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 29 Jul 2008

Lisbon Treaty: Discussion with National Forum on Europe.

Chairman

Before we start, I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Maurice Hayes, chairman of the National Forum on Europe, and Mr. Charles Sheehan and Ms Grace O'Regan, director and deputy director, respectively. They are here after undertaking long trips around the country in the past six or seven months. During our own tour of the country in the run up to the referendum, it was clear there was a serious lack of knowledge and understanding about the EU among the general public, not just on the Lisbon treaty itself. We also found that while many people came to our meetings and said that they knew nothing and were ill-informed, they still seemed to be well informed on why they should vote against the treaty. There is a contradiction, and I believe that committee members will verify the contradiction during this meeting.

We must step up our efforts to improve how we communicate Europe to the people of Ireland. This is the first in a series of meetings involving bodies that can bring the EU to the people, including the Commission and the European Parliament offices in Dublin, the Government, through its Communicating Europe initiative, as well as the National Forum on Europe. The objective of these meetings is to develop, in partnership with all the other players, a comprehensive strategy to improve how Europe is communicated in Ireland. The word was put about by various people during the course of the campaign that we could get a better deal. It now appears that this was the better deal, although we went to great ends to point out that the treaty we were voting on had been considered very seriously by the member states, their parliaments and governments. Perhaps we were lulled into a false sense of security by the experiences of the Nice referendum and thought that we could have two shots at everything in the future. That is not the way things are working out this time.

I invite the chairman of the forum to make some opening remarks, following which I will invite comment from committee members. This portion of the meeting is to finish by 3 p.m. or thereabouts.

Dr. Maurice Hayes

Thank you very much, Chairman. I am grateful to committee members for facilitating me. The problem is that I have a speaking engagement in Armagh at 5.30 p.m., but I would be happy to come back on another day if it suits the committee. We are glad to have the opportunity to exchange views on the work done in advance of the referendum. Many members of this committee are also members of the forum and have been actively involved in the forum's work over the years. As many of the remaining members also have a good understanding of the forum's role, I will not take up too much time in going into forum and its operation.

The forum was established in 2001 by the Government and the political parties after the first Nice referendum. Our terms of reference were to provide the basis for an inclusive and broadly based debate on Ireland's participation in the European Union, and on the overall functioning and future developments of the EU. It was created at a time when there was a 34% turnout for the referendum, and one objective was to increase that level of turnout. The forum was not and is still not the only body operating in this area, and we claim no monopoly in any way, but it was regarded as somewhat of an achievement that the vote increased to 50%. We have always been somewhat fixated on two objectives. The first is to create space for debate and to provide as much information as possible. The second is to ensure as many as possible turn out to vote in the referendum and that they feel equipped to do so.

Full membership of the forum is confined to parties and groupings represented in the Oireachtas. From the outset, however, the forum has also afforded representation to non-governmental bodies in order to recognise their role in the debate and to avoid simply replicating political divisions. The special observer pillar was created for this purpose, comprising the social partners, groups active in European Union referendum campaigns, both for and against, registered political parties not represented in the Oireachtas and political parties from Northern Ireland. MEPs from North and South have attendance and speaking rights and all political parties in Northern Ireland are entitled to membership of the special observer pillar. Participation in the observer pillar has increased from 30 organisations in the early stages to 46 now. Membership of the observer pillar, the general agenda of the forum and the control of its work are determined by the steering committee, which is representative of the political parties and does not include a forum representative.

We set ourselves a programme of work early in the year to promote a lively and informed debate on the treaty with the broadest possible audience throughout the State. Our objective was to ensure voters could make their decision on the basis of sound information and to secure a high turn-out. A programme of plenary meetings was devised to provide for a detailed examination of the treaty and its implications. We invited high level speakers from both sides to address these plenary meetings, including distinguished visitors from other EU countries. From the outset I insisted that we take the forum out of Dublin Castle and hold meetings at other locations. Starting from the end of January, we had 13 full meetings and 24 meetings in various locations throughout the State. When one allows for the Easter break, this represents a concentrated period of work.

As part of our work programme, we distributed 45,000 copies of our summary guide to the treaty, to which our director contributed mightily. It is interesting that people claimed they had no access to information on the treaty. All this information was also available on our website, which was accessed by many users. We also produced a ten minute film for use at our public meetings which introduced the main issues. This film was also available on the website. What we found particularly useful about the public meetings was the multiplier effect in that they afforded us access to local radio and other local media, which were generally more receptive than national media. In most cases, the principal speakers were interviewed in advance of the meeting by local radio and this increased awareness of the issues. One meeting in Wexford featured on Pat Kenny's radio show. We also made available a half-hour summary of the discussions which took place at each meeting.

We recently circulated our programme of work for the remainder of the year. I understand all members have a copy of my report on the last session but I have additional copies if anybody requires one. The objective set by the steering committee for this session is to seek to ascertain the reasons for the referendum defeat and what happened in the run-up to it. In this regard, we will rely to a significant extent on the research the Government is commissioning. It is our view that between now and Christmas, the forum should not host major public meetings but rather conduct a series of seminars at which the issues may be teased out. However, we await direction as we are the creatures of the political parties and the membership of the forum.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome Dr. Hayes to this meeting of the committee and compliment him on the excellent work he has done over successive referenda and the work he continues to do. Having participated in one of the forum's countrywide tours, this committee experienced the same difficulty in its efforts to engage with people at public meetings. We found a great level of difficulty in getting the kind of participation one would want from the general public and found that it was effectively the same people travelling from venue to venue, coming as they and we did from our various vantage points.

Does Dr. Hayes have any ideas for getting better engagement from the general public on the subject of Europe? As part of that, does he think there is a continued role for the forum into the future? Notwithstanding what was achieved by the forum and committee in terms of their trips around the country, as Dr. Hayes quite rightly said, in attracting media attention both before and after, which was obviously helpful, neither of our efforts seemed to engage with the general public or encourage people to participate and have their questions answered. The bulk of the questioning was from stated positions and was, clearly, more about frustrating whichever side they were targeting rather than eliciting any purpose or useful information to assist those who participated in making up their mind.

Could Dr. Hayes identify any other thoughts he might have in terms of how we deal with that disjoint between Europe and the general public, which is a debate separate from dealing with either the Nice or Lisbon treaties? Does he have any suggestions as to how, based on his very considerable experience, we might put in place a structure that would provide a better connect between what is happening in Europe and what is relevant to the Irish people?

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

I do not think the disconnect is between Europe and the Irish people. It is between Leinster House and the Irish people. I will speak about it very briefly. The forum produces great reports but does not reach beyond a certain elite. In many ways, it has been set up almost as an alternative to Leinster House for people who cannot get elected to these Houses. I am afraid that we must address this issue. I understand the difficulties faced by Dr. Hayes and his colleagues. I chaired the Communicating Europe task force. It is extremely difficult to get across information about Europe. Information does not carry in the media unless it has some currency that people can address.

I will talk about how bad is the situation. I was canvassing on the day before polling day outside the DART station. More than one person told me that I was not supposed to be canvassing because there was a moratorium. My response was that, as far as I knew, the country was still run from Leinster House rather than Montrose. We need to refocus on this because this is one of the issues. I mean no disrespect to anybody. I am only one year out of the Oireachtas and still feel very much part of it. I am an elected representative, although I am not a Deputy or Senator, and feel empathy and sympathy with the Oireachtas.

Deputies and Senators have ended up with all the responsibility and none of the power or authority that is commensurate with that responsibility. We have tribunals of inquiry, several different forms of commissions, the forum and bodies of all kinds carrying out what should be the work of Parliament. At the end of the day, Parliament is left with all of the responsibility but none of the authority. Whatever way this is addressed, the Oireachtas would be doing a public service if the Dáil was recalled in September to consider this matter. For no other reason, it would say Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann are taking the message on board and will examine it. I am no longer a Member, but the Oireachtas will determine the response to events, if any.

I share the opinion that the question should not be sent to a further commission outside the Oireachtas. However, one could marry the idea floated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to my suggestion of returning the Oireachtas to centre stage by having a small group of people report to this committee - be it called a parliamentary commission or whatever. On behalf of the Oireachtas, the committee would decide what type of report on the way forward elected Members would like to make. The committee would receive input, but the situation should not be like that obtaining in the case of the commission that drafts Dáil constituency boundaries, which has supplanted the role of the Oireachtas. None of us wants someone interfering, but the Dáil dares not interfere in the reports of the commissions. That is not the role of the commissions. We must return to the point at which decisions on legislation and matters of public importance relevant to the role of Deputies and Senators are taken by Members in order that they have both power and authority.

Concerning the Chairman's initial point, it might be possible to marry the two ideas on a way forward if there is some discussion between the committee and the Minister, thereby leading to an agreed group that could quickly consider the research and our situation and make a report to the committee. Subsequently, the committee could report to the Dáil when it resumes. This might help.

While I am not levelling criticism at the National Forum on Europe or another group, this situation must stop. If the democratic deficit in politics is to end, power must be returned to the Houses. It has reached the point at which Members, despite having denuded themselves of power, assume all of the responsibility. Something is wrong in this respect.

Chairman

At the committee's second last meeting three weeks ago, it drafted proposals to address the post-Lisbon treaty situation, including a series of meetings with various interest groups and bodies. Previously, the committee failed to get the attention of Libertas. Despite several attempts to bring it before the committee, its head did not respond. Consequently, we did not receive the political input referred to by Mr. Mitchell, MEP. This left a vacuum in the sense that Libertas set off on a tangent with its own publicity and was not challenged politically by the Oireachtas in the form of the appropriate committee.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Like the Chairman, I welcome Mr. Maurice Hayes to the committee. He has brought honour to the Oireachtas and the whole island. Having worked closely with him for five years in the Seanad, I know his worth full well. While his group, which was originally the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation, played its role as laid out in its terms of reference, it is an unattainable type of forum. While I may be wrong, I never believed that people could come in from the streets unexpectedly to give a spiel. Given that one always believed it to be prearranged, it only appealed to a certain type of voter or non-voter, be he or she positive or negative towards Europe. This is not to decry the forum's work. Any group fortunate enough to have Dr. Maurice Hayes at its head was doing well. This also applies to the group's directorate, which is here with us today.

The debate developing around the table is interesting. I do not decry the idea of Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, that the disconnection is not between Europe and the citizens but between the citizens and Leinster House. I was on a radio review of newspapers on which that was said by a gregarious gentleman who said that ordinary people do not know what we are doing with our lives. He went out to a Bentley, driven by a chauffeur with a cap on his head, while the rest of us trudged off in taxis or our cars. One wonders what connection there is.

Perhaps Dr. Maurice Hayes can respond to this point. It is foolish to imagine we can have another referendum on the Lisbon treaty. I hear people say that we put the Nice treaty twice but the first turn-out for the Nice treaty was, as the Chairman says, 34%. That was not the case with the Lisbon treaty referendum, which had a turn-out in the mid-50s, an amazing turn-out for a referendum in any country. Turn-out of 44% was regarded as wonderful at the Glasgow by-election.

We had a decent turn-out but the people said "No". There is no escaping that despite all the pussyfooting that is going on. President Sarkozy - however one pronounces his name and whether there is one kiss or three kisses is beside the point - did us an honour by coming. I see nothing wrong with him coming here. France is a powerful country and its president came to see us. He was on his best behaviour, beautifully composed, but lurking in the minds of these important people is that going the route of the referendum again will manage to turn people around. I said it here after the referendum and I will keep repeating that we will not be able to carry another Lisbon treaty referendum. It is foolish talk. The sooner we realise this, own up to it and see if there is another way through, the better. I do not know if this is another step on the road to a referendum but if this committee, headed by the Chairman, is bent upon that route I do not think it is a good one. However, perhaps we can seek another way to get the Lisbon treaty, and its component parts, which means a great deal to us, passed in another fashion because a referendum will not work. I do not know if there will be a crescendo from all sorts of people.

I understand the chagrin of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Martin, at the fact that an English group came to see what the Irish thought and how patronising it was. We did not have any comment on what the people said. Red C undertook the study on behalf of the English group Open Europe, which is jargon for closed Europe. The result was what the people said, which was, in increasing numbers that they did not want another referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Dr. Maurice Hayes has lived through a great deal, seen much and seen many intractable situations. I am interested in hearing what he has to say on this matter.

Chairman

I agree with the Minister's comments and the Deputy's views on that matter. During the campaign, some commentators used the term "neocolonialism". I am of the view that the particular group in question would have been acting as a front for the new colonists in a way that has not been evident for a long period.

Deputy Joe Costello

I welcome Dr. Hayes, Mr. Sheehan and Ms O'Regan. I compliment Dr. Hayes, in particular, on the good work he has done since the establishment of the National Forum on Europe. I also compliment the forum on the work it has done in respect of the Lisbon treaty. The summary guide it produced was the best publication of its kind during the course of the referendum campaign. The forum was also responsible for holding meetings in Dublin Castle and at other venues throughout the country, while continuing to run its education programme in schools. Such work was admirable.

The National Forum on Europe was established on foot of a desire to learn lessons following the rejection of the first referendum on the Nice treaty. At the time it was proposed that the National Forum on Europe and the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny - both of which have done sterling work in the interim - be put in place on a formal basis. There is no doubt that these bodies have produced the goods since their establishment, but there may now be a need to put forward or consider other proposals. It might also be desirable to review the work of both bodies in the context of the direction in which they are going, the resources at their disposal, etc.

The National Forum on Europe's campaign on the Lisbon treaty eventually took the form of a number of set pieces. The difficulty was that the same people - all effectively saying the same thing - attended the meetings held in Dublin Castle. With the exception of visiting dignitaries, the same politicians, members of non-governmental organisations, etc., attended these meetings. It was almost possible to write the script for later meetings on the basis of what was said at earlier ones. Consideration must be given to this aspect of the matter.

When the forum held regional meetings throughout the country - a fantastic development - the turnout was limited. Many of those who attended such meetings had already made their decision and were on either one side or the other. This committee had a similar experience when it held meetings in locations other than Dublin. We discovered that many of those who attended were not necessarily openminded. Again, our meetings became a succession of set pieces and the public engagement members originally envisaged never really took place. I do not know whether it would be possible to engage more proactively with the public by meeting community groups and senior citizens' groups and visiting schools, but we should certainly consider the possibility of doing so in the context of the review and analysis to which Mr. Hayes referred.

It does not really matter what we do in respect of this issue. As a result of the democratic deficit, it is extremely difficult to encourage the public to engage with the question of Europe. People are concerned about so many pressing issues that it is difficult to oblige them to care about what happens in Europe. I will offer an example. The European and local elections will be held in June of next year. Some 99% of people will be concerned with the latter while only 1% will care about the former. Even with the best will in the world, people's natural response is to deal with local, national and European issues in that order. That is a problem we will always have.

We have endeavoured to keep the Oireachtas centre stage. This committee and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Scrutiny have beavered away. The committee travelled around the country to do its best to bring the Oireachtas to the people and it also brought in all the stakeholders to discuss matters. As the Chairman said, one or two of those the media consider important did not bother to grace the committee with their presence, but they were on every programme the media could find for them. However, that was the approach we took.

The role of the Dáil and Seanad will always be central to the way forward. The Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Scrutiny have already put forward proposals for further action with regard to enhancement of the national Parliament post-Lisbon treaty and to a new information awareness service within the Oireachtas. Those two proposals have already been made and the Government has also set in motion an in-depth analysis with Millward Brown.

When the findings of that analysis are available, it seems only proper that we then have a full scale debate on them in the Dáil and Seanad and only then try to plan the way forward. I am not convinced there is any great value in another cross-party joint committee replicating the work of this committee. I do not understand the need for a high-powered committee to do the work of a committee already in existence, as has been proposed. After the referendum on the Nice treaty, a number of new and unthought-of proposals were put forward and I have no doubt the same will be true following the referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The Government has come up with a proposal. It was right to make a proposal because its job is to lead, but I am not sure its proposal is of major significance at this stage. I have no doubt the Opposition will also put forward proposals or that the National Forum on Europe will bring forward proposals to review its work and suggest a way forward.

The issue we are discussing is the Lisbon treaty, but what we are really discussing is whether there is any mechanism that will ensure we are not in such a dire situation when we have to face the next treaty put to us. To some extent, we were better prepared for the Lisbon treaty referendum than for the Nice treaty referendum because we had done more work and better mechanisms were in place. Nevertheless, the public was not in a position to be fully aware of the situation, to understand its complexity or to engage with the existing institutions. This is the real disconnect. How we establish that connection is the long-term work that faces the country and these institutions.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

I welcome Dr. Maurice Hayes and his colleagues from the National Forum on Europe. I was a member of the forum and believe it did a great job in what it set out to do. Notwithstanding that, following what Deputy Costello said about the types of people attending the forum and the type of media interest in it, we must question the usefulness of continuing with the same format. The media are present at this meeting because there may be some discussion on the issues. However, the first time I saw television cameras at the National Forum on Europe was when Gerry Adams was speaking. We had various European leaders at the forum prior to that, but I did not see the television cameras there to cover what they had to say. The media have a role to play.

The National Forum on Europe did a great job in terms of the information it produced, but that information was not disseminated widely enough. The summary guide to the Lisbon treaty produced by the forum was far superior to that produced by the Referendum Commission and contained more detailed and necessary information. I compliment it on that and believe that is a role it should continue in the future. One criticism I would have of the forum - this is meant to be constructive - is that business closed as the referendum campaign officially started. Perhaps that is part of the forum's terms of reference, but there was no activity from the Forum on Europe after the Taoiseach spoke to a plenary session. The people were only beginning to tune into the Lisbon treaty debate at that stage. Perhaps the forum could have then played a more important role.

A criticism of the forum came from one of my colleagues who attended the public meeting in Drogheda. He felt that even if I perhaps said things that he did not agree with or if a Sinn Féin representative said things that I did not agree with there was nobody there at the forum to say who was right or wrong. The public wanted that. They did not necessarily want political arguments from Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. It is fair to say that the "No" campaign exaggerated and made up things as it went along. There is no two ways about that. However, with the authority of former Senator Maurice Hayes and his staff, the forum should have been able to interject in debates and give the facts. It should have been able to state that what was being said was a political argument but was not factually correct or contained in the Lisbon treaty. Perhaps that is something the forum should consider. Otherwise it should continue. It is important to have a national debate on Europe comprising more than just elected Members. Whatever committee considers these issues in the future should focus on the National Forum on Europe because considerable money is spent on it. It has great potential and many good things have happened in it.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I greatly appreciated the value of the forum. I attended frequently, as did Deputy Thomas Byrne, because I made a decision at the beginning that I was not going to make my mind up as to what way I would vote until I had questioned everything I had heard concerning citizens. I found the forum a very useful area to do so. To a certain extent I criticise the political parties which, on the day it was announced, stated they had made up their minds and had already decided to vote "Yes". When I decided I would vote "Yes" it was only after I had asked all the questions.

Deputy Joe Costello

What the Senator is saying about the parties is not true.

Senator Feargal Quinn

While it may not be true, it seemed that the decision was made very early.

Deputy Joe Costello

We have our procedures. We had a conference where we debated the issues.

Chairman

Senator Quinn should continue.

Senator Feargal Quinn

The decision was made very early by all political parties, including Sinn Féin. They did not seem to debate it. From that point of view I found the forum very useful and I appreciated it.

Let me give a view that has been expressed to me in regard to the future, which is that this is not a problem for Ireland, but a problem for Europe. It is a view that has been expressed very clearly. If Europe believes in democracy then it cannot insult the Irish people by seeking another vote. That is an argument that makes a great deal of sense to me. It seems to me that if other countries had that chance they might have done the same. The Netherlands, Czech Republic, UK and Poland all seemed to make sounds that had they a referendum it might have gone the way that ours went. I mention this because it is a big danger to Ireland. Therefore, I am not arguing that is the correct route to follow. I believe the Tories are likely to be elected into Government in Britain probably sooner than we expect. As far as I can see there are no pro-Europeans within the Conservative Party in Britain.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

There are.

Senator Feargal Quinn

There is not a sound of them coming forward. They are very much euro-sceptic. I would not be surprised to find a new Tory Government call for a referendum just because that is the voice that has been expressed in that area. That is a real danger because if we are talking about a two-speed Europe in which we would be isolated, it would be even worse if it is a two-speed Europe - talk about neocolonialists - in which we would suddenly be back into a united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland if we are not careful. There is a real danger of that happening.

There is a question as to how we solve it. While I do not know the answer, I believe it lies in bodies such as the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and the National Forum on Europe. I encourage Dr. Maurice Hayes and his team to pay the attention that needs to be paid to overcome this problem. The argument that it is not Ireland's problem but Europe's needs to be seriously addressed.

Senator Dan Boyle

I have been a member of the steering committee of the National Forum on Europe since it was established in 2001. I believe it has been largely successful. In its earliest incarnation it was seen to be one of the reasons the debate on the second referendum on the Nice treaty was better informed and a "Yes" vote was eventually secured along with a higher turnout. Subsequently the forum had many visitors from other European Union countries reviewing the forum as a model to use. I do not believe that anything that happened in the referendum campaign can be laid at the door of the forum.

Previous speakers referred to the disengagement between Leinster House and citizens. The disengagement is between politics and citizens and applies as much to the institutions of the European Union, including the European Parliament, as the Oireachtas. It is connected in large part to the nature of the debate on Europe in this country, including prior to the debate on the Lisbon treaty. I speak as someone who has contributed on the "No" side of the debate in several referendums.

Many people suspect that to hold an alternative viewpoint on Europe is somehow treasonous. Treating other points of view in this manner without engaging directly with the relevant issues has increased the number of people who are willing to vote "No" in all circumstances. Those who are involved in the political system need to ask why people take this attitude and the reason this impression has gained currency among the population.

The problem was augmented by the type of campaigning we had where some politicians believed citizens would be convinced of their argument by displaying pictures of themselves on posters emblazoned with the word "Yes" as if it were some kind of visual Molly Bloom soliloquy. No attempt was made to engage with issues in the referendum debate and people were not given reasons to vote "Yes". Any analysis of the referendum must analyse the "Yes" as well as the "No" votes to determine the extent to which people felt obliged to vote in favour of the referendum because politicians told them to do so and the extent to which the "Yes" vote reflected a view that the Lisbon treaty corresponded best to voters' vision of Europe. The debate on the issue in both Houses should be conducted on those terms.

I hope the forum has an opportunity to examine the extent to which our political structures are addressing this issue. My impression is that if put the Lisbon treaty, as it stands, to the people again, it is almost certain we will have the same result expressed in more vehement terms. To believe elements of the treaty can somehow be parcelled off and passed through legislation without constitutional implications would be an even greater insult to the population, which rejected the Lisbon treaty package in its entirety. Even if there is life in the Lisbon treaty, it is certain that a subsequent treaty with different contents will have to be put to the people in some form. In light of the distaste which has been encouraged by the nature of the debate on the Lisbon treaty, can we be confident that any treaty, irrespective of its content, will be treated differently by the electorate? Given current conditions, I suspect the answer is "No".

Deputy Noel Treacy

I warmly welcome the chairman of the National Forum on Europe, Dr. Maurice Hayes, its director, Mr. Charles Sheehan, and its deputy director, Ms Grace O'Regan, and thank them for the outstanding contribution they have made to European affairs in the past eight years.

Ireland and the European Union are in a difficult position. The National Forum on Europe has consistently provided a focus on European issues and created an opportunity in a democratic environment for people to have their say and listen to European and national political leaders give their opinions on a range of European issues. I agree with Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP, that the difficulty for the forum and politicians is that there are people on the forum who are self-appointed and have no mandate. They represent particular bodies and organisations because they have a different point of view. The media love these types of people and give them more currency than elected representatives. On many occasions during the campaign, I found the media were not interested in speaking to politicians and were more interested in speaking to those who were guaranteed to say "No" to the proposition of reform in the European Union.

I agree with Senator Boyle that there is a serious disconnection between politics and people. We must ask ourselves why this is the case. Perhaps it is the fault of politicians or a failure on our part to communicate our message. Perhaps it is due to the success of the nation. People may no longer depend on political decisions or look to their political representatives to deliver on serious issues, as they did during the successful evolution of the country. Now that we have reached a certain milestone, albeit a challenging one at this time, people do not have the same general interest in the political scene as heretofore. We all find that in our own political organisations and in future we have to focus on how we get the message across and how we attract more people into the body politic, not just into professional politics but into political activity. That is a big challenge for us all but we must find a formula to do it in terms of all political decisions that have to be taken, whether they are legal, political, both, or otherwise.

The current impasse is a serious matter for Ireland and it is grave for the European Union. It is not possible to stay as we are because whether we like it or not there will be change. We are in a de facto situation legally as a result of the Nice treaty. We have lost the Lisbon treaty referendum and that is holding up the progress of Europe. There are serious consequences in that regard in European and world terms. Basically, we are stymying the capacity of the Union to exert its position in an even-handed manner on global issues that are critically important to all of us as citizens of this country and of Europe. That presents a serious situation for the future.

Myths are constantly being peddled about Europe to the effect that it is a great monster with a hidden agenda to impede the progress of small nations like Ireland and to distort the balance of democracy, and that it has a military agenda. Many people in pseudo-underground organisations stick up their heads from time to time in different ways. They have latent agendas and operations and they cultivate a niche market to whom they are able to transmit messages almost invisibly. They are able to hold up the progress that is necessary from a European political point of view.

One can ask where we go from here. I believe the National Forum on Europe has a key role to play. I also believe the committee has a key role to play. It is incumbent on Government to provide leadership. The Government through the Minister for Foreign Affairs has put forward a proposal to which we have a serious responsibility to give consideration. Somebody has to carry out a detailed analysis on the legal-political situation post-Nice treaty vis-à-vis the current situation and how we can go forward. We must establish what are the advantages and disadvantages to Ireland as a result of the Nice treaty in the next decade vis-à-vis the benefits or otherwise that would have been conferred on us as a result of the Lisbon treaty being passed. Those are two comparators that are critical for the future.

It is important that we have a message to give to people as to where we are now and what the impact of the treaty would be and what we had hoped to achieve. We cannot achieve what we want unless we get change and it is up to us as politicians in consultation with the public and all of the State organisations and political bodies such as the National Forum on Europe to find a consensus that will assist us as a nation to make our contribution to ensure there will be progress for Ireland within Europe and for Europe within the world.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

We are having a most interesting debate. Many issues have been raised to which I subscribe. I welcome Dr. Maurice Hayes, Mr. Charles Sheehan and Ms Grace O'Regan from the National Forum on Europe. I do not think anybody would question the fact that a significant amount of work has gone into the forum, particularly in the past 12 months in the run-up to the referendum. I acknowledge that work and commend the members of the forum on it. I am already on record as having expressed my concerns about the forum in its current format. I do not believe the members of the secretariat have done anything wrong but the format and concept of the National Forum on Europe is completely wrong. I joined the forum three years ago with an open mind with a view to participating in a meaningful debate on the future of Europe. I looked forward to it because I am very interested in European affairs and I am unashamedly pro-European. That is not to say I did not consider the implications of the Lisbon treaty, as suggested in part by Senator Feargal Quinn. My party certainly did. For almost seven years, it was involved in the process that was supposed to lead to the signing of the treaty through the Convention on the Future of Europe. We were fully involved all the way--

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

As was this committee.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

- -as was this committee and most political parties, from both sides of the House. Everybody had the opportunity to have an input.

I am concerned that the National Forum on Europe does not connect with ordinary people and engage with or educate them. This is not necessarily the fault of the forum; I just do not believe any body of this nature can achieve such a goal. I am concerned that people simply do not understand the European Union. I know of students who received 600 points in their leaving certificate examinations but who do not have a clue about the difference between the Council and the Commission.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Nor do many of the teachers teaching them.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

Precisely. I wonder whether every Member of the Houses has educated himself or herself fully. The reality is that trying to explain a treaty on institutional reform to people who have no basic concept of what the institutions are, how they function and their relevance to their lives is pretty impossible. That is where the entire process has fallen down. We have no formal means of educating young, middle aged or older people about what the Union is, what it does, how it has benefitted us and how it functions. People do not have a clue. This is not an elitist view but a realistic one.

Members will be aware that, after the referendum and out of curiosity, I tabled a series of parliamentary questions to determine the annual cost of running the National Forum on Europe. The cost runs to a couple of million euro and increases every year. This money could be spent better by investing it in a proper education programme in schools. This would at least ensure that the youth of the future will have sufficient knowledge.

Most schoolchildren know something about the Oireachtas and that there is a Dáil, Seanad and local authorities. They feel connected to those institutions and most of them visit the Oireachtas on a school tour at some point. However, they have no concept of how the European Union's institutions function. This is where we should invest taxpayers' money, rather than in a forum in Dublin Castle that essentially provides a platform for people who cannot get elected to any other forum, as Mr. Gay Mitchell stated. This is the reality.

The forum began with high-minded ideals and objectives. I can understand why people felt at the time of the Nice treaty referendum that it would be a good way to engage with those on both the "No" and "Yes" sides and serve as a means of having a debate on the future of the Union and Ireland's role therein. However, this simply has not occurred and cannot if the format is to remain the same. Every single person who participates at the forum, including me, knows how he or she will vote in forthcoming referenda. Participants know their views on the future of Europe and attend week in, week out, or month in, month out, and read out a single script that can be transferred from speaker to speaker. The process is essentially redundant in terms of how we are to progress and connect people with the Union.

I agree fully with Mr. Gay Mitchell's point on elected members having denuded themselves of power. This is evident from the hundreds of quangos that have been set up. I do not want to revisit this ground but we should bear in mind that we must now put the Oireachtas centre stage in the process and have meaningful debate therein. The Oireachtas, including the Joint Committee on European Affairs, should operate like committees in Capitol Hill in Washington and in virtually every other democracy throughout Europe. We need to take control. Ultimately, whether people respect it - my view is that people's respect has been seriously eroded in the past ten years due to tribunals and so on - this is the fount of democracy here. This is where those who have been elected by the people are. This is representative democracy. I heard Declan Ganley on the radio after meeting President Sarkozy saying that the message of Libertas is that this is all about democracy, yet he and his acolytes have no respect for democracy. They have no understanding of parliamentary democracy. They do not respect the Oireachtas or the mandate of the people who are in here. As the Chairman pointed out, they even had the audacity to turn down an invitation to this committee, because they are much happier to stand outside Leinster House and give interviews to RTE or TV3 than to come in here and face up to a real democratic debate. This is the most anti-democratic feature of the people on the "No" side.

Today I received a phone call from a councillor who was going on a local radio station in his area which had featured Patricia McKenna yesterday. The point being put to him this afternoon was that she had a greater mandate than he did because the "No" side won the referendum, despite the fact that he is an elected councillor.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

She had been turned down by the electorate.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

She could not get a nomination from the Green Party to run for the council. Despite the fact that he was an elected councillor, this person was being told by his local radio station that Ms McKenna had a greater mandate. I do not know what form of democracy that is. It may be the view of Libertas on democracy but it most certainly is not mine.

The National Forum on Europe has served a certain purpose. I agree that the information and materials produced by it before the referendum were the best by a mile - better than those produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Oireachtas Commission. I do not want to scapegoat the National Forum on Europe or use it as an easy target to blame for the loss of the referendum. However, I just do not feel that the format works. We can quite easily have a European affairs information service in the Oireachtas for school tours and so on. At the moment we have nothing to give them on European affairs. They must traipse across the road to the European Parliament office as there is no service in the Oireachtas. This has already been recommended by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and we need to follow through on it. We need to analyse the outcome of the Government research commissioned in a sub-committee of this committee or a body that is appointed by or answerable to this committee, as suggested by Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP. Duplication is not the answer. The bottom line is that we must give a much enhanced role to elected people and to the Oireachtas in this debate.

Chairman

Dr. Hayes, unfortunately, must leave now. I would like to sum up but in deference to Dr. Hayes, who is on a tight schedule, we understand if he wishes to leave.

Dr. Maurice Hayes

I would like to give a reply which ten minutes ago might have been less acerbic than it will be.

Chairman

Yes.

Dr. Maurice Hayes

I did not think when we set up the National Forum on Europe that we were supposed to make up for the deficiencies of the education system, the fact that there was no civic education, and the fact that the European institutions and MEPs had not been able to get the message through and that Members of the Dáil had not been able to get the votes out. I do not want the forum to be scapegoated for this, but a strong effort has been made to do that. Just as we would not have taken the credit if there had been a "Yes" vote, we should not take the blame for the "No" vote.

There seems to be a deep division between members here and people who work in the forum as to our role and mandate. The mandate we were given was to promote a debate on Europe, not to promote a particular view on Europe. After the first referendum on the Nice treaty, when the forum got going, we came in with a 50% turnout, which everybody said was fine. This time there was a 53% turnout and suddenly that is wrong because a majority voted "No". Perhaps if Fine Gael had been there when the forum started it might have taken a different shape. However, the format was set. It continued in that manner and the only way to get a real debate on the subject was to bring people in as part of the observer pillar. That was done. There could be a very neat debate in the forum and if it were confined to elected members two or perhaps three of those are canvassers for a "No" vote. It is a very strange reflection of the 53%--

Mr. Gay Mitchell MEP

We are not penetrating with the information discussed by Dr. Hayes. That information is going to an elite--

(Interruptions).

Chairman

One speaker only at a time. There will be an opportunity to return to the argument.

Mr. Gay Mitchell MEP

It is going to an elite. That is the point.

Dr. Maurice Hayes

I am quite happy to be here. It is proper that this committee or any other committee should review the work of the forum. It is proper that the forum should review its own work and, as has been pointed out, there is very little point in putting in a great deal of effort if that effort is wrongly directed. We must sit down and look at what happened. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.

Senator Quinn said the referendum result was not a problem for Ireland, rather it was one for Europe. It is a problem for both and that is why it must be worked out together and with considerable difficulty. Someone remarked about the complexity of the treaty. It was extremely difficult to deal with such a complex matter in the format we had. We were told that people should have been able to walk in off the street to consult. They were able to walk in off the street and did so at all the local meetings. The trouble was that most of those were more interested in promoting the "No" line.

People ask what might be done in general. One of the things that struck me, looking at this situation, is that the Irish political system does not handle referenda very well. This is not a criticism of parties or individuals. Referenda are about ideas and while political parties are good at selling themselves they are not so good at selling ideas. That is where the effort must start. I take the point made about civic education. It is interesting to note that we spent a great deal of time in the forum with women and with youth groups and we also addressed schools very intensively. Oddly enough, however, when it came to the point those were the groups that tended more than others to vote "No" .

We had to consider whether somebody in the forum should have been authoritative about the subject. One can recite what is contained in an Act of Parliament or what is written on a page but it is much more difficult to say what it means. The committee found the same situation when it went around the country. There would be two experts for everything.

I take the point made by both Senator Boyle and Mr. Gay Mitchell that there is a deep disconnection. As a hurler on the ditch, what struck me was how it can be that political parties that can attract the votes of up to 85% of the people in the Dáil cannot get 50% of the people to vote for things they want to happen. This was most striking at the time when the "Yes" vote was running about ten points ahead in the polls and the political leaders of the three main parties spoke out together. Intuitively one would have believed that such a step would have served to push the whole thing forward but the opposite happened. There is a very deep and worrying disconnection between people and politicians. This is a matter not only for members. In a sense we must all deal with it.

I have enjoyed the debate and the exchange of views and am willing to come back at any time. The forum members must sit and think about this and we will be assisted by the views expressed here. I regard this as the forum to which I and my colleagues come back to report to our stockholders. They are the people who tell us what they want from the forum and what they think we could do. They tell us what bit of the jigsaw we could fit in with on the question of debating, not the Lisbon treaty, but how the relationship between Ireland and Europe can best be managed for all. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I thank all the members who contributed.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Hayes who I think will make it to his meeting on time.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

Perhaps the director could stay behind to hear my point on this. Dr. Hayes took up points I did not make. I just made two points. First, we have created a forum for people who cannot get elected to this House. Second, while the forum produces excellent reports, it is not penetrating beyond an elite. I made this point when I chaired a committee on communicating Europe; it is practically impossible to do it. I do not know whether any body would be able to do so. It is not something that relates to the outcome of the referendum one way or the other, but in examining the outcome of the referendum we must lift all rocks. If the forum, which is paid for from taxpayers' money, is not penetrating beyond an elite and is only producing an alternative Leinster House for people who cannot get elected here, that is not Dr. Hayes' problem, it is our problem. That is a reasonable point for us to make.

Dr. Maurice Hayes

The MEP is presenting a form of discussion on democracy which is that unless one has been elected by somebody one is not allowed to speak.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

No, that is not true. That is how Dr. Hayes is interpreting it.

Dr. Maurice Hayes

It sounded very like that.

Mr. Gay Mitchell, MEP

That is not true. One is allowed to speak, but we are creating a paid elite to go over there every so often, who cannot get elected to any other forum. That forum is not doing anything for the public debate. It is not penetrating beyond a small elite. We are exchanging views over there between people who have been elected and people who have not been elected for €2 million per year and the public does not know what is going on there. That is the problem and we must address it. If Dr. Hayes were God almighty he would not be able to do anything about that.

Dr. Maurice Hayes

If one goes to a meeting in Wexford or--

Chairman

I wish to bring this stage to a conclusion. Has Dr. Hayes concluded?

Dr. Maurice Hayes

Yes.

Chairman

A couple of comments need to be borne in mind. Some very valid points have been made by the committee members and by Dr. Hayes. The forum does a job by examining the case for and against, but at this stage somebody must decide to come down on the side that is in the interests of the people. That is where the debate between Mr. Gay Mitchell and Dr. Hayes arises. For example, 166 Deputies and 60 Senators are elected to the Oireachtas. Some 90% - that is a conservative estimate - of the people's representatives were of one opinion. There are those who say they were not correct and they were proven to be the winners on the day. However, there is not much sense in having a democracy that on the one hand elects people to represent the public in Parliament, and on the other hand discounts what they have to say on the basis of false propaganda. Those responsible for the false propaganda, including the Open Europe group, referred to by Deputy Mary O'Rourke and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, have their own clear agenda. The Vice Chairman and I have discussed this matter. Six months ago, this committee told the Government, European Commissioners and MEPs that the referendum would not be carried and we would not win it. We realised that. We knew that because the propaganda campaign was going against us. Seemingly, nobody had the right to challenge those who had an opposing view to that of the majority of elected Members of the Oireachtas. Nobody could challenge them. For example, this committee wrote to RTE pointing out what it saw as a discrepancy or disparity in its coverage. RTE, quite rightly, wrote back showing a spread-sheet, which is fair enough. However, RTE's letter contained a footnote referring to the McKenna judgment. That means, which is what the forum has to do, that one must have a 50-50 presentation and the people make up their minds afterwards. In fact, however, it does not work that way.

Senator Dan Boyle

That is not the McKenna judgment, it is the Coughlan judgment.

Chairman

No, it is the McKenna judgment also. It does not work that way and it is turning democracy on its head. If the view counter to that of the majority of elected Members must be presented equally, where are we going? What is the agenda of Open Europe, a group of very influential people based in Whitehall? A loose fitting economic entity is being promoted, as Senator Feargal Quinn said. It is almost like Ireland and the United Kingdom all over again. I cannot understand why Irish people listened to the propaganda which came from Whitehall and from various groups in Denmark and Berlin. They are all eurosceptics with a clear agenda of their own. They carried the day in the propaganda war. The reason members of the committee, who were elected by the public, were not able to respond was that we were told that the opposite view had to be put forward at the same time. That led to a great deal of confusion.

A number of personalities were brought forward and asked how they were voting. They were not elected by anybody and, generally speaking, they were voting "No", which was not a great help. The committee agreed to invite in a number of "No" campaigners, not to allow them to have an unlimited opportunity to put forward their point of view, but to ask simple questions. For example, why did young people, young women, in particular, vote "No" to such an extent? Was it because of the activities of Cóir or because of some subterranean campaign which scared people? It appears that was the case. It is not funny from the point of view of the country, the economy and the future. It is a serious issue. Whatever the issues, we must connect with people and deal with the issues.

In preparation for what will happen following the month of August, if the committee wishes to do so, I would go along with a suggestion to set up a small sub-committee to come up with recommendations. If it wishes to proceed as originally intended, or to engage in a combination of both, it should keep in mind the Government's proposals in regard to this issue.

The people have spoken on the basis of the information made available to them, including the propaganda diverted in their direction, and they came to a conclusion. What we do not seem to recognise is that there will not be a new treaty because there was one. The original treaty was revised following the French and Dutch rejection of it. It was revised to accommodate 75 million people and that took into account the views of the Irish negotiators as well. It was not done on the flip of a coin. The Irish had an input and the Lisbon treaty emerged.

We now face a situation where we are stuck with the Nice treaty in which case there will be a reduction in the number of Commissioners and we will not have one at all. In addition, our standing in the European Union will decline. We cannot approve anything unless we hold a referendum. We need to put our thinking caps on to figure out ways and means to ensure we know where we are going, that we at least have an agenda of our own which will emerge very quickly, whatever it may be, and that it will be seen to be of help.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I propose that we enter into discussions on an all-party basis, perhaps in private session, either today or at a date in the future to decide how we will deal with the matter going forward. To the best of my knowledge, such a proposal has not been put on the table by the Minister or the Department. I understand there has been some consultation between the Whips or some communication between the party leaders on how this will be dealt with. It might be premature for this committee to enter into a round of business until such time as that has been agreed. It is critical this committee is involved in whatever way that might be.

The Chairman raised a fundamental point, although perhaps he and I are looking at it differently. Some 90% or more of politicians in the Oireachtas called for a "Yes" vote in the referendum. Unfortunately, however, the result went against them. That is a matter of which we must take cognisance. We must be careful with regard to how we proceed. We must show the majority of those who voted "No" that we are listening. We must ensure that the structures we put in place to deal with this matter will be capable of taking account of the reasons that prompted people to vote "No".

A number of charges - these were roundly rejected by members - were levelled at the committee during the course of the campaign. At some of the meetings we held at locations outside Dublin, people stated that we had all made up our minds, that we were not independent and that we clearly knew what we wanted to happen. We were at pains to indicate that, as Members of the Oireachtas, we had a mandate but that people should tell us what we were missing or outline the way in which we had misunderstood the treaty. To the best of my knowledge, no one succeeded in doing so.

I referred earlier to the 90% of politicians who called for a "Yes" vote. A large proportion of those politicians failed to convince the people that voting "Yes" would provide the best outcome. The Chairman made a good point regarding the majority of elected parliamentarians leaning in a particular direction. The mandate we have been given does not bestow upon us absolute power or rights in the context of the determination of the future of Europe. That is why we hold referenda. There is no obvious candidate among the members of this committee who might speak on behalf of those who voted "No". We could continue to convince ourselves that this is unfortunate, that a democratic decision was made at the most recent general election and that we must proceed on that basis. However, the people spoke again in the referendum and they did not concur with us. That is democracy.

In attempting to put in place a structure or format that can be used to analyse the way forward, we must be prepared to consider matters in a different way. I propose that we engage in a debate involving all parties and Independent Members. We must, by communicating with each other, put in place a proper forum within the Houses of the Oireachtas which could offer an indication as to how we might move forward.

Chairman

It is possible, with a view to being ready for whatever emerges at the end of August or the beginning of September, for the committee to establish a steering group in order that we might play our part. It must be borne in mind that there are two roles involved - that relating to the Department and that relating to the committee - and that these are not necessarily one and the same. The committee will be obliged to exercise its independence and make clear that it is not an appendage of a Department. At the same time, however, it must be representative of the Oireachtas.

What Deputy Dooley proposes is not contrary to what I am suggesting. Establishing a steering group would represent a means to proceed, as opposed to waiting for events to unfold. The Joint Committee on European Affairs has been in operation for almost 30 years. It has played a meaningful role in the past and should continue to play it in the future. We happened to be on the losing side in this campaign. If all of those who lost campaigns in the past had given up, the political outlook would have been bleak.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

The Chairman's motives, in the context of what he proposes to do, are good and honourable. However, I agree with Deputy Dooley that anything we might do would be slightly premature. We appear to be reacting to media speculation regarding the Dáil being recalled in order that the Government might establish another Oireachtas committee. It seems like media speculation and, possibly, two telephone calls have led to these stories and to the committee reacting in this way.

There are other European issues of consequence to the committee and the public that could get left behind if we concentrate on this. Issues such as the European mortgage market are important at the practical level, but are unaffected by the Lisbon treaty. There is a danger of leaving such issues behind if the committee starts to focus on the past and on what has happened with regard to the Lisbon treaty. Like Deputy Dooley, I would be inclined to wait and see what, if anything, happens between the party leaders and the Whips. I understand that little has happened so far, apart from a phone call here or there. We should wait and the committee should get on with other matters.

One of the problems with regard to the Lisbon treaty and referenda on Europe is that the people are not fully aware of what Europe does or what it does for them. Therefore, if we continue to highlight matters such as mortgage proposals at European level that will benefit consumers, this can only lead to a more positive attitude among the public for Europe and European affairs generally.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I agree with the comments made by the Chairman and would like to add to them. As pointed out, we must remember there are three branches of Government under our Constitution, the Judiciary, the Executive and the Legislative. It is not necessarily our business to propose solutions to problems. That role falls to the Executive branch of Government. Our role is to analyse, review and debate and to reflect the views of our constituents and citizens.

One could ask therefore to what purpose should we spend time analysing why people voted "No". What use is that and how fair is it to do it if one does not at the same time ask why some people voted "Yes". Many people voted "No", not because they were confused, misled, immature or on the beer, but because they simply wanted to vote "No". That choice must be respected and that is what democracy is about. I did not agree with that position, but I was in the minority.

When we talk about respect we must mean it. I would like to highlight the need for a sense of caution as to how to proceed. The people have said "No" to the proposal put forward by the Government in the referendum. Therefore, it falls now to the Government to bring forward proposals for a solution, not just in the Irish but also in the European context, and proposals as to how we will proceed in the short term when we must deal with the issues of the European elections of 2009, which are looming, and with the implications of the Nice referendum on the composition of the Commission. These are issues we must deal with quickly. It is not the role of this committee to solve problems it has not created. We can analyse the situation and ask questions, but I advise caution against going down the road of asking people why they voted "Yes" or "No".

I believe I have as much an idea as to the reason some people voted "No" as "No" campaigners have. I have answers for both sides and my opinion is as legitimate as that of any "No" or "Yes" campaigner because I fully participated in the referendum. We have other issues we should debate. If the Government makes suggestions to us, we will consider them as always, but I advise caution against running too far ahead.

Chairman

I note the points made and the reference to the separation of powers. However, it is clearly set out that the committee has functions such as, "Considering such matters arising from Ireland's membership of the European communities as it may select". It is quite clear in the terms of reference we have responsibilities in that area. As I have pointed out to members many times in the past if the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs is not seen to be involved and playing a leading role in whatever issues arise and emerge on the European scene, whether that be a referendum or anything else, we would be negligent and I do not believe the committee wants to be negligent.

I note the point about the Department. We await the Government's proposals. However, we should also be clear in making ourselves available and making it clear that in the event of whatever might take place, we are willing and more than capable of playing whatever role will fall to us and will do it well.

The Vice Chairman and I happen to represent constituencies that voted "Yes" in the referendum. I worry about asking the same people to vote again on anything. We have already made our decision. We are not going to go down that road. I will call Deputy Costello after which we need to move on to the other very important issue regarding lending and borrowing criteria in the European Union.

Deputy Joe Costello

Perhaps we should have a special session with you, Chairman, and the Vice Chairman in order that the rest of us can find out how to do it.

Chairman

It would be a good idea.

Deputy Joe Costello

The Minister for Foreign Affairs appeared before the committee in the past two weeks to outline his proposals for an in-depth analysis with Millward Brown. In addition the Government must make a presentation or submission in October, which all the other states will be awaiting with bated breath. The Government has the lead role. However, at the same time the Minister has gone a step further and spoken to the party leaders regarding a proposal. It would be relevant for the committee to ask the Minister to outline any further proposals he has since he appeared before the committee to outline the way forward he envisaged at that time. No doubt this is a further suggestion. I suggest that it might be no harm to write to him and ask him how he envisages it playing out.

Time is of the essence. We will not have much opportunity to meet between now and September. We need to discuss any other structure the Minister might propose to establish and the possibility of the recall of the Dáil. If the Minister were prepared to tell us what the Government is planning to do, particularly if it does not involve a cross-party activity, we would be in a better position as a committee to plot our way forward as to what we will do. The best thing to do would be to ask the Minister in writing what is going on and have him write back to us.

Deputy Noel Treacy

I do not want to delay the meeting as we have very important guests to appear. We should postpone this discussion for a private session in early September and consider all options at that point.

Chairman

In the meantime we should write to the Minister pointing out that we are available to fulfil whatever role we can. Is that agreed? Agreed.