Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 2014

Voting Rights of Citizens within EU: European Commission

The committee is in public session. I remind people to turn off their mobile phones so that we do not cause interference with the recording equipment. I can inform Deputy Crowe that we will try to finish the first session by 2.45 p.m. and the second session by 3.30 p.m.

We have two substantive items on the agenda this afternoon. Later we will have a discussion with the Lithuanian Ambassador to Ireland to discuss the introduction of the euro in 2015. The ambassador is seated in the Gallery and I look forward to hearing from him later.

The first item on the agenda is the issue of voting rights of citizens within the European Union. On behalf of the committee, I welcome Ms Barbara Nolan, head of the European Commission Representation in Ireland, and Ms Eimear Ní Bhroin, political affairs officer. Members will be aware of the Commission's recently published communication and recommendation regarding the voting rights of EU citizens exercising their right to free movement within the Union. The Commission criticised a number of member states for not giving voting rights to their citizens in national elections. Ireland, along with Malta, Denmark and the United Kingdom, was also cited for disenfranchising voters who had exercised their right to move within the EU. Today's meeting will provide the European Commission with the opportunity outline the rationale for that guidance that they gave us a month ago. In the coming weeks we will hear from a cross-section of opinion on this so that we can carefully consider how to progress this important issue for the many Irish communities based in other EU member states.

Before we begin, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or body outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way that he, she or it could be identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings today is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I now invite Ms Nolan from the European Commission to give her views.

Ms Barbara Nolan

I thank the committee for inviting me to speak on this important issue of the disenfranchisement of Union citizens who exercise their right to free movement. As the committee will know, the European Commission issued a communication and a recommendation at the end of January this year which addressed the matter in detail.

In the interest of clarity, I will set out the scope of the Commission's communications and recommendations and provide an brief outline of what led to the January recommendation and ultimately what we are trying to achieve with all of this.

The bottom line is that in five EU member states – Cyprus, Denmark, Ireland, Malta and the UK – citizens who choose to live and work in another EU member state lose their right to vote in national elections. In the case of three of these countries the right is suspended after a certain period of time spent abroad which differs according to each member state. In the Irish case, the right is automatically suspended and is only reinstated if the citizen formally declares his or her intention to return to Ireland within 18 months. Ireland is at the extreme end of the five member states that do not give their citizens a right to vote when they move outside the country. The Commission’s view is that this represents a gap in the rights of EU citizens. We are particularly concerned that citizens exercising their right to free movement are losing out on their right to vote in national elections. The communication and recommendation that we published at the end of 29 January are aimed at addressing the gap.

I shall explain the legal context because I know that the subsidiarity issue will be foremost in people's minds. A communication is a policy document with no mandatory authority. The Commission publishes a communication when it wishes to set out its own thinking on a topical issue. Therefore, a communication has no legal effect.

Let me explain the accompanying recommendation. In European Community law, a recommendation is a legal instrument but one which encourages those to whom it is addressed to act in a particular way and is not binding. It essentially provides guidance to member states. I wanted to make it clear from the outset that this is not heavy legislation. The two documents are designed to give the Commission's thinking and to give guidance to member states on this issue.

The Commission underlined in its communication in January that, according to Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union, it is a matter for each member state to solely decide on the composition of the electorate for its national elections. We do not question that is a right of member states and we are not trying to take that right over. We are asking member states to provide or look at providing for the possibility for citizens to renew their registration on the electoral roll if they demonstrate a genuine interest in national politics.

The recommendation and communication did not come out of thin air. We have arrived at this situation through a number of steps that I will briefly outline. The Treaty of Lisbon, which became law in 2009, among other things that I am sure members are familiar with, strengthened EU citizenship by establishing a close link between citizens, the exercise of their political rights and the democratic life of the Union.
In 2010, the European Commission published its first annual EU citizenship report. One of the issues it highlighted was the practice of disenfranchisement. Essentially, some EU citizens migrating from one EU member state to another and exercising their right to freedom of movement found that they were unable to participate in any national election either at home or in their new country of residence. As EU citizenship was clearly supposed to add to the rights citizens had, and not result in any diminution of those rights, this so-called disenfranchisement was identified as an obstacle to EU citizenship. We in the Commission received a number of petitions from citizens on the issue as well as questions from a number of Members of the European Parliament and correspondence from members of the public. Thus, it seemed appropriate that the issue should at the very least be addressed. Therefore, we announced that we would launch a discussion to identify the political options available.
In June 2011, Vice-President Reding wrote to certain member states explaining the context of the discussion and invited their contribution to a common reflection on the subject. The Irish Government was one of the countries that responded to his invitation. In February 2013, a joint European Parliament-European Commission hearing on EU citizenship, as part of the European Year of Citizens, heard that disenfranchisement was a key obstacle to EU citizenship. It was agreed at the hearing that the existing policies of disenfranchisement needed to be addressed.
I shall also mention an important court case that took place in the European Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU court, but gives a lot of guidance in terms of fundamental rights. The European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment on the Shindler case. Harry Shindler was a British Second World War veteran who had lived in Italy for more than 15 years and had consequently been denied his right to vote in national elections in his home country after the 15-year period. The judgment pointed to the fact that the emergence of new technologies and cheaper transport had enabled migrants to maintain a higher degree of contact with their state of nationality than would have been possible until recently. The court went on to state that this had led to a number of states amending their legislation to allow non-residents to vote in national elections. The court concluded that there was a clear trend in favour of allowing voting by non-resident citizens. I cite that case as jurisprudence in the area.
The European Commission has also taken note of the discussions that have taken place at the Irish Constitutional Convention. On 25 November, the convention formally submitted its report to the Oireachtas recommending the extension of voting rights in presidential elections for Irish citizens resident outside the State. The convention underlined the huge response that it had received to its online questionnaire on the issue from Irish citizens based in 64 countries ranging from Afghanistan to Zambia. The chairman of the convention stated that he was "astounded with the size of the response and the strength of opinion" on the issue. The Commission looks forward with interest to the Government’s response to the report, which I understand will happen in the very near future.
This leads me back to the Commission's communication and recommendation. The Commission's fundamental aim is to suggest constructive ways to enhance the rights of EU citizens to participate in the democratic life of the Union while exercising their right to free movement. Let me again underline that we do not question the sovereign right of member states to determine the composition of the electorate for national elections.
The Commission makes four recommendations. The committee has received the documents, but I will briefly summarise them. First, as opposition to the principle of non-resident voting is often based on the presumption that the connection with the political process in the home country is lost after a period, the Commission recommends that member states should enable nationals who make use of their right to free movement and residence in the European Union to retain their right to vote if they demonstrate a continuing interest in the political life of the member state of which they are nationals. This should include the possibility of applying to remain registered on the electoral roll. The Commission points to socioeconomic and technological realities such as cheaper air fares and the existence of online media in facilitating citizens who want to stay in touch with political developments in their own member states. Second, the Commission recommends that member states that put such a system in place can implement proportionate additional arrangements, such as the possibility of reapplying at certain intervals. Third, the Commission recommends that such applications be possible electronically. Finally, the Commission recommends that for those member states whose citizens automatically lose their right to vote in national elections - such as Ireland - when they move to another member state, the member state should inform the citizen by appropriate means and in a timely manner about the conditions and the practical arrangements for retaining their right to vote in national elections.
I shall conclude by emphasising again that neither the communication nor the recommendation are legally binding on Ireland. Also, both are intended to highlight what the Commission perceives as a gap in the political rights of EU citizens while providing guidance on how to fill the gap. The Commission is asking five countries - Cyprus, Ireland, Denmark, Malta and the UK - to show greater flexibility so that their own nationals are not denied the right to vote in national elections. Clearly the ball is in Ireland’s court as to how it wishes to respond to the recommendation.

I welcome Ms Nolan and Ms Ní Bhroin to the meeting. Ireland has a long tradition of emigration in the European context and our nearest neighbour is the primary port of call. Does the delegation know how many Irish citizens live in the EU but outside Ireland? A number of Irish citizens travel to the UK, for example, to work for a period and return. Those people are probably still registered at home and have the right to be registered at home. Is it easier for other European countries because their electoral systems use electronic voting or national identity numbers? Can the witnesses elaborate on the matter? There has been a lot of talk in this country about using PPS numbers and that type of thing for the electoral register. I ask the witnesses to comment on this. Ms Nolan mentioned that the Commission has received a number of petitions from Irish residents. How many?

With regard to other countries whose citizens have the right to vote after leaving, do they also have a right to vote in their existing countries of residence? I think they included some of the main countries. Ms Nolan said the Commission's recommendation was not binding, so presumably it can be considered and left. Is there a chance that it will be made binding? Has there been discussion of this?

I thank Ms Nolan for her contribution. We are 40 years in the EU but the attitude of successive governments to the Irish diaspora has been disgraceful. I have recorded this view on many occasions.

I base my view on my embarrassment on realising, as an OSCE election monitor, that a very diverse range of countries, including Ukraine, Romania and other former eastern European counties, had their embassy networks open their doors to their non-resident nationals. A good reason to be in the European Union is that decisions on Irish domestic policy are pushed by embarrassment. This committee and others of the Parliament have been addressing this for quite a while. I am convinced and happy that there will be changes. However, I have a couple of questions. Ms Nolan is obviously wearing the EU representative's hat, so she is talking about 28 countries conforming. This committee must consider the wider diaspora because there are so many emigrants in America, let alone the 50,000 who are illegal. Every other American claims to be Irish. One must also consider New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, elsewhere in Africa, and many other areas. There are many such countries with a huge diaspora. How we handle this may be a separate issue but we must start by giving leadership and conforming rapidly with the EU norm. I thank Ms Nolan for highlighting this yet again. I hope that within the relatively near future we can come up with a formula to afford Irish EU citizens the right to vote in national elections.

Somewhere in the correspondence we have it is being argued that Irish students should now start engaging in the recruitment process for jobs in Europe. Would it not be ironic if they took up jobs in Europe and, in doing so, possibly lost their votes? Such phenomena are not consistent with a modern 21st-century country.

I welcome Ms Nolan and Ms Ní Bhroin and thank them for the presentation. The position of the Commission is not binding, as stated; the competency is one of national parliaments. The way in which the delegates are engaging is very respectful of that. We should not be frightened or any way annoyed because the Commission is pointing to what it believes to be a discrepancy in the rights of citizens of the five countries concerned, including our own. I have a real belief that Irish citizens who reside in the Union should be entitled to participate in elections here. This is long overdue.

As the witnesses will know, there has been a wider debate on the extension of the franchise to the diaspora. While those who remain within the European Union certainly have a legitimate expectation to have a vote, it might be different for citizens who travel farther afield. However, even in this case we need to embrace their views and opinions, although perhaps not as directly as in the case of those who remain within the Union. That creates issues for the Government and for all of us in the political arena. We must ask why one might treat one citizen differently from another but, because of the nature of the European bloc, progress should follow relatively quickly. It would be a first step in dealing with our diaspora. I support strongly and welcome the Commission's consideration of that.

A broader issue concerns whether citizens who seek to have a franchise in a particular state should pay tax in that state. That is not relevant in the context of the European Union because of the free movement of goods, people, services and capital. It is a broader issue, of course, in the case of those who move to Australia, the United States or jurisdictions farther afield. Many of the standard concerns that arise regarding the extension of the franchise are negated in this instance because of the broad bloc that is the European Union.

I thank Ms Nolan. We are out of sync with approximately 115 countries which grant voting rights to their citizens. I acknowledge that many of these countries are outside the European Union. A vast number of Irish people in Australia and America, including relations of mine, keep in touch constantly with what is happening in Ireland. It is important to realise that the vast majority of those who emigrate for work go of necessity and not by choice. Some feel very aggrieved because they are unable to have a say in the politics of their country as a consequence. It is important that we all bear mind that this issue extends beyond the European Union. I could be wrong but I believe the vast majority of Irish citizens abroad, who are in America, Australia, New Zealand and such places, are not even being considered at this stage. Not bringing them all on board would be wrong.

I have two questions for Ms Nolan. She said the arrangement was not binding. If we are not able to introduce legislation in the immediate future or medium term, is it likely that the European Union might make the provision binding on Ireland? Ms Nolan said people needed to demonstrate that they had an interest in Irish politics. How can they do that? Must they do so through Facebook or otherwise? Very many people who left Ireland for other locations in the European Union are already registered in Ireland and keep in touch with Irish relations. I would not want to stipulate that people must prove they have an interest in Irish politics. The mere fact that they are Irish citizens who have to work in Europe should be enough. If they had been taken off the register here, it should be enough for them to have a say in how their country is run.

We have three more questioners, but I will ask Ms Barbara Nolan to respond to the questions she has received thus far.

Ms Barbara Nolan

We are not talking about the wider Irish diaspora beyond the European Union. We are talking only about those Irish citizens who have moved to other EU member states, because is not our remit to go beyond that. I acknowledge that there is another considerable issue, but it is not the subject of our recommendation of communication.

Deputy Kyne mentioned particular figures. I do not have figures with me but can try to determine whether I can find some. Mobility in the European Union in generally quite low by comparison with the United States. Roughly, only 3% of the entire population actually move to live and work in another member state. As we all know, the majority of Irish people do not go to European Union member states to live and work but to countries farther afield. There is an example of European Union member states allowing non-nationals to vote in national elections. As members probably know, this agreement is between the United Kingdom and Ireland under arrangements that predate EU membership for both countries. Based on the principle of reciprocity, Irish people can vote in British elections and vice versa. That is a case apart. We are talking about relatively small numbers.

It is true that electronic voting is much more widespread in continental Europe than here. It possibly makes voting easier, but I am not sure about that. We are mentioning ways in which voting might be made easier, perhaps by using electronic means and various technological advances, if Irish citizens living and working abroad were to be given the vote.

On petitions, I did not say Irish persons made those petitions. In fact, I understand many of the petitions come from British persons living abroad who, after 15 years, lose their right to vote in national elections. I mentioned Mr. Shindler, the veteran of the Second World War, who suddenly lost his vote.

As to whether it is binding, it is not binding and it is not the intention to make it binding. As I stated, the idea is we are pointing out what we see as a lacuna in the current arrangements. We are giving guidance to those member states concerned, in particular, on ways in which they could fix this, but it is not intended to go further, although we would like to see a reaction from Ireland and the other member states concerned as to how they see matters in the future. As I mentioned, this may be linked also to the discussion that is going on in the Constitutional Convention.

Is there anything in EU law preventing the Commission from making it binding?

Ms Barbara Nolan

It cannot be binding. In the Treaty of European Union, these are matters that remain the responsibility of the member states. That is the position.

On the EU against the world, obviously, our remit is the EU. Those were mainly the points raised.

I asked a question about Ms Nolan's point that people would have to demonstrate their interest in Irish politics.

Ms Barbara Nolan

For example, persons could apply to remain on the electoral roll. That would be already a sign that they are conscious that they are disappearing off the electoral roll and they want to remain on it. It could be something as straightforward as that which does not require any major demonstration or sets of criteria to fulfil before they could remain on the electoral roll. It could be the simple act, when they are leaving the country, of stating that they do not want to be taken off the electoral roll.

I thank Ms Nolan. There were three further questioners. In order, they were Deputy Durkan, Deputy Crowe and Senator Leyden. Senator Leyden needs to attend the Seanad and with the approval of Deputies Durkan and Crowe, I will let him in first.

I thank my colleagues.

I welcome Ms Nolan and Eimear Ní Bhroin and thank them for their work for the Commission. I have been regularly attending functions and events and they play an active role in the work of the Commission which is appreciated by Members of the Oireachtas. I commend their important schools programme.

In principle, my party is much in favour of this. The first step is the presidential elections. As a first step, that should be cornered. Other than that, there should be voting rights for European citizens in Ireland. European citizens who live and work in Ireland and pay taxes should be given full voting rights, both in constitutional referenda and in elections.

We are doing a bad job in keeping the Register of Electors in Ireland for those who are entitled to vote here. For example, my brother, Joe Leyden, is 54 years on the Register of Electors and his name was taken off it without his knowledge or permission. If that is what is happening in County Roscommon, if that is the lax approach to the Register of Electors in Ireland, how in heaven's name will we arrange a situation where we can record and support Irish citizens abroad, whether in the United States, in New Zealand or in England? It would be practically impossible to keep the register, or the addresses, up to date. There are many practicalities involved.

In principle, Fianna Fáil is fully in favour of voting being granted to Irish citizens abroad. The Constitutional Convention recommendation on the presidential election should be accepted without question because the presidential election is a broad picture. In a tight situation in a general election, it would be difficult to manage votes abroad. Will the candidates have to go to the United Kingdom, France or elsewhere to start campaigning with pockets of votes that are registered there. There are many practicalities which, as the Commission representative stated, can be gone into. It is worth researching.

There will be witnesses in at future meetings to talk about how we would manage it.

That is fair enough.

In principle, it is a good idea. I agree that voting rights should be extended for presidential elections, but Irish citizens here at home should be assured that they have a voting right, for example, after 54 years. It is, to say the least, sick to be removed. If we could get our act together here for a start, we might be in a better position to get our act together abroad.

If I was Senator Leyden, I would raise that with Roscommon County Council.

The Chairman need not worry. His name has gone in today to be put on the register.

It was only on the register once, was it?

For 54 years, he was on the register. He never came off it.

I thank Senator Leyden.

By the way, there is an important vote on 23 May.

Absolutely.

I have one eye on the screen, as I must dash across when my question is about to be bounced.

This issue has been talked about for many years and some elements of it are workable and, unfortunately, some are not. There is the question that posted workers throughout Europe, either in the public or private sector, who go there not of their own accord but because they are sent by their employers, should have the right to vote in embassies or wherever. That is a given and I have no difficulty with that.

The next question that arises is the old principle of whether there is representation without taxation which has been tossed around for years as well. If they are permanently posted abroad by their employers, public or private, they probably should retain the right to vote throughout Europe.

The big question relates to the diaspora worldwide and the degree to which one can prove a point, without impacting severely on the electoral decision of the people at home. It is a serious issue. It is something of which the European Commission is mindful. Of course, we recognise that this is only a discussion on an observation, and it has no power of enforcement or anything like that.

There is the question of the voters' register that has been referred to by Senator Leyden. First, a means has to be found to update that. If we cannot update the register at home, I can assure Ms Nolan without a shadow of a doubt that we cannot update the register abroad. That is the first measure to be taken and it is a fundamental aspect of voting.

If one does not do it right, one can completely corrupt the voting system. One can simply and easily skew the voting in a particular direction, with the use of modern technology, much to the disenfranchisement of those who live in the homeland, and that must be observed at all times. There are two issues. One is the entitlement of citizens abroad to exercise their franchise under whatever the rules and guidelines, but the other is to be certain not to disenfranchise those who are living in the homeland, and that should apply to all other countries as well. Otherwise, those living at home paying their taxes in the normal way to the Government through the agencies at home may find themselves outvoted at some stage in the future in cases of countries with a large diaspora.

In the interests of clarity, is Deputy Durkan speaking not of a weighting system but of those who are illegally removed from the register in their homeland?

In the first instance. There are countless ways, and how to compile a register properly is the next matter. I note that the PPSN system was referred to in the past. I was involved in doing some work on this some years ago.

Was that on the environmental committee?

It was an association of the environment committee and another committee where we were involved in a report. Along with the need to deal with the register, a difficulty we identified was that we must recognise in the case of Ireland there is such a large number recently of this origin who are living abroad. For example, if this were to apply in Australia or New Zealand, how would one organise that and to what extent do those emigrants have access?

The voters' register should be held by the post office in this country for a start. The post office staff are the only group which has access to every house, flat and apartment, including gated residences, in the country on a daily basis if wishes. Nobody else has such access.

On the flaws in the PPSN system, one can have an address anywhere under that system. One could be anywhere. It does not prove anything. It does not prove one's entitlement to vote in one area or another, or in one constituency or another, or it does not disprove one's right to vote in two constituencies.

The final point I want to make is that I do not believe this can be done without including some of the wider diaspora in the United States, Canada and New Zealand. It would be unfair to exclude those who left this country in the past five years, for example, and went to Australia, Canada or elsewhere.

On electronic voting, it is out as an option. I would not support that under any circumstances.

I have no doubt we can return to that issue at a future meeting.

I will not go down the road of speaking about where the electronic voting machines are currently being stored.

Cuirim fáilte roimh Ms. Barbara Nolan agus Ms Eimear Ní Bhroin. I wish to raise a number of issues. The first decision we need to make is on the importance of the issue. The representatives said they would separate consideration of the issue and that their recommendation is that this would apply within the European Union, but even as EU citizens, how important is our access to a vote? That is the key question in regard to the issue. Is it important, very important or vital that people are allowed access to a vote? If we accept that access to a vote is an individual's basic right, and in recent years we have come to the conclusion that even those in prison should be allowed access to a vote, why should we not allow people who, through no fault of their own, are not living on the island of Ireland or who cannot get to a polling station in their constituency on the day of the election? I would argue that Ireland is unique because approximately 70 million people view themselves as coming from Ireland. Our history of people having been forced to emigrate in itself makes us different in this regard. That is the reason the State should be more flexible in this regard. I believe also that the crisis we have been through in recent years and the fact that one person has left Ireland every six minutes is another reason those individuals who, through no fault of their own, have been forced to leave our shores, like previous generations, should be given that opportunity. Why have we not come to the conclusion that we should allow these people to vote? One reason is that many of them probably feel very annoyed about the Government they left behind or the conditions that forced them into that position. There has always been a view that if we gave a vote to those living abroad they might vote one way or the other. The body politic protects itself and does not want to introduce change in that regard.

Sinn Féin launched its own document today, Moving Forward Together: A Vision for the Global Irish Diaspora, in which there is reference to the presidential election. In the Dáil today Sinn Féin will put forward a Bill proposing an amendment of the Constitution to allow people access to a vote in the presidential election. It is putting it up to the Government and all the parties in this House, because if we are all saying we agree with this issue, what is the next step? The Constitutional Convention has suggested that we take this step forward. Therefore, the next logical move is for Government and Opposition parties to come together - they have come together regarding the Constitutional Convention but also with regard to this House - and take on this issue.

The presidential election should be a first step. We also must examine other elections, including Dáil elections, and we are talking about reform of the Seanad. I raise these issues because I believe Ireland is unique. Other countries do not have the same number of emigrants compared to the number who have left our shores over the years. There is a need for us to reach out to those people. We are quick to seek their support in times of difficulty but in times of plenty we tend to forget them. There is a need for us to examine that issue.

I welcome the fact that the Commission is examining this issue, but the fact that it is non-binding does not mean we are off the hook, so to speak, in respect of it. The representatives should be saying it is vital for our citizens, whether inside or outside the European Union, that they have access to the vote.

On the Deputy's suggestion, in addition to hearing his party's policy on this matter, as a committee we could invite a representative from each party to outline their thoughts in the space of five or ten minutes. We could have a meeting specifically to do that, if the committee thought it would be worthwhile.

I certainly believe it would be useful, because there is general agreement across all parties and none in the House.

It appears there is.

We all believe this is an issue that must be tackled. It is up to someone now to take the ball and run with it, and this committee might move forward on the Commission's recommendations.

Let us do that. There are three parties represented here today. Each party might decide who the relevant person in their party would be, and if they give me their names I will invite them. It may be a member of the committee, a leader or whoever.

Ms Barbara Nolan

Although Senator Leyden has left, I would point out that what we are talking about is the right to vote in national elections. EU citizens already have the right to vote in local and European elections in the member state in which they reside and work. That is already in place. The principle has already been ceded on those two areas. What we are addressing here are the national elections. We are getting a little caught up with the diaspora. Ireland is a member of the European Union and under that there is the concept of a citizen of the Union with certain rights that go with that, which is not the case for countries outside the Union, such as Australia or the United States, where there are large communities of Irish people. We cannot compare the two, as it would be like comparing apples and pears. Most member states give their national citizens the right to vote in their national elections when they are living and working abroad. We have pointed to the five countries out of 28 member states that do not do that. It is a particular problem related to national elections with regard to people who move from their member state to live and work in another member state. I cannot get involved or speak about the wider implications of what this might mean for people outside the European Union. That does not come under my remit, nor is it my business.

I thank Ms Nolan for that. The discussion has been very interesting and useful. We are having a number of meetings on this issue and a range of guests will appear before the committee, including, as the representatives will have heard, members of each of the political parties, and from this process we hope to issue our own conclusions, which we will pass to the representatives and to the Government. I thank the representatives for coming in and the discussion has been very useful.

Ms Barbara Nolan

Thank you.

I propose we suspend briefly to allow the next guests to take their seats.

Sitting suspended at 2.48 p.m. and resumed at 2.49 p.m.
Top
Share