Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the cost which accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal since January 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15556/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Tribunals of Inquiry.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the costs that have accrued to date to his Department arising from the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15593/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:3 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs which have accrued to his Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18625/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:4 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the full cost to his Department to date of the Moriarty tribunal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20711/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The expenditure incurred by my Department in respect of the Moriarty tribunal from 1 January 2009 to 31 May 2009 was €1.78 million. Total expenditure in my Department from the establishment of the tribunal in September 1997 to 31 May 2009 was €36.25 million.
The total figure is €36.25 million while the figure for 2008 was €4.01 million. I understand from the Comptroller and Auditor General's report that the final cost will be in the region of €100 million.
I want to ask the Taoiseach a question I asked him before. He is aware that the normal practice for tribunals is to use lawyers from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and that the highest level of salary for these officials is €85,000. Will the Taoiseach confirm that for the past four years the Moriarty tribunal has ignored that arrangement and engaged a solicitor from private practice? Can he confirm that the fees of €1,000 per day are in excess of €1.2 million for the last four years? Does he have a justification or reason for having sanctioned the use of a solicitor from a private practice when the tradition in tribunals has always been to use persons from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor? As the Taoiseach is aware, fees were set in 2002, seven years ago. Is it intended to review the pay scales of lawyers to the Moriarty tribunal?
In the latter part of 2004, the sole member of the tribunal formed a view that, in the context of increased pressures on the tribunal, a solicitor with experience in commercial practice and litigation from the private sector was required in addition to the tribunal's existing solicitor on secondment from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. As the Department wished to avoid the cost of two solicitors, it was agreed that instead of an additional solicitor, the private sector solicitor would replace the solicitor from the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. That appointment was expected to be of limited duration in view of the then expectation of the completion of the tribunal's work.
Sanction was obtained from the Department of Finance and a rate of €1,000per diem agreed, which is also the rate paid to solicitors at the Mahon tribunal. The private sector solicitor was to be recruited by the tribunal. We are informed by the tribunal that he was recruited by interview process, his appointment being at the discretion of the sole member, subject to the sanction of the Departments of the Taoiseach and Finance. The sole member has assured the Departments that when public sittings are conclusively completed the role of the legal team is likely to diminish.
In July 2008 the Minister for Finance stated that it was decided that legal counsels to the tribunal would no longer be paid once public hearings were completed. The Government told the Departments to which the tribunals report that tribunal legal teams, including a senior counsel at €2,700 per day, should be let go. That did not happen in the Moriarty tribunal. Does the Taoiseach have a figure for how much has been paid out since last July toward a tribunal which has sat only a handful of times? On 14 July 2008The Irish Times reported that the Minister for Finance had told the Departments to whom tribunals reported that once the public hearings were over, legal staff associated with it should no longer be paid.
The recent Comptroller and Auditor General's report on tribunals made no specific recommendation on the Moriarty tribunal. However the report made it clear that the implementation of the Government's legal costs working group's recommendations to establish a legal costs regulatory body could help combat the escalation of legal costs and promote regulation and a structure in which future estimation could be carried out. Arising from that, why did the Government not establish a structure or agency to manage legal costs, given all of what is involved here?
Does the Taoiseach have an opinion on the tribunals which have been established to do specific work? Does he see a situation where we should have a future referendum to ask the people to restore the position whereby Members of the Oireachtas, whoever they might be, would be entitled to carry out investigative or examination work? This happened with the DIRT inquiry and to some extent with the Abbeylara inquiry. While people might be very cynical about politics and politicians, those two inquiries did a remarkable job at very little cost to the taxpayer and, in the case of the DIRT inquiry, brought a sizeable return to the Exchequer. With all the public comment about costs associated with tribunals, perhaps the Taoiseach might reflect on the matter.
Following the Government decision of July 2008, the Minister for Finance wrote to his Cabinet colleagues with responsibility for tribunals stressing that it was essential that tribunals and inquiries conclude their business as early as possible and that legal costs were managed in the interest of the taxpayer. He requested them to inform the chairs of the main features of the Government decision and asked that they seek a firm completion date from the respective chairpersons. As a result of that decision we wrote to the sole member who indicated that it was his intention to complete his work — that is to publish his report — by the end of that year. Up to December 2008 the Department was still being informed that the timetable was still on course.
While, naturally, I am not privy to the workings of the tribunal or kept informed of its investigative work, obviously a number of things have happened regarding the tribunal. The preliminary findings, which are in circulation, were subject to an injunction when some media threatened to publish them and these proceedings took up a considerable amount of the time of the legal team. The chairman issued his preliminary findings in November and interested and affected parties have responded. Fresh evidence is being heard to allow people adversely affected by the provisional findings to argue against them.
The result is that while public hearings are still being held the full legal team is in place. Further hearings are taking place this month. I understand that it is likely that after that is completed the chairman would then proceed to finalise a report in the months thereafter. That is my latest understanding of how he intends to independently complete proceedings as things stand.
Regarding the overall issue of tribunals etc., we have enacted legislation. Commissions of inquiry may in future be a far more appropriate mechanism of investigation without the associated costs that have arisen with these tribunals of inquiry, where a life's work seems to be part of the outcome. Committees of this House have their roles. Where they have been able to work within the legal constraints without offending the constitutional rights of citizens, they have been able to conduct good work on various issues some of which have been suggested by Deputy Kenny. Working within all those parameters, the commissions of inquiry and the investigative powers of committees could provide a better means for the future.
Two questions arise from the Taoiseach's reply. As the Taoiseach has said the Moriarty tribunal has reopened public hearings. This is apparently as a result of the draft findings of the tribunal which were circulated to interested parties. Can the Taoiseach give the House any indication as to when those public hearings will be completed? When are we likely to eventually get a report from the Moriarty tribunal?
Related to that it has been reported that a document — I understand from the reports that the document contained legal advices sought by the then Attorney General back in mid 1990s — about which the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources had claimed legal privilege and had withheld the document from the Moriarty tribunal for more than ten years, has now been produced to the Moriarty tribunal. Can the Taoiseach confirm that such a document that had been withheld for that period of time has now been produced? Has he made any inquiries as to why the document was withheld in the first place and what caused it to be eventually released? This is about cost.
Unfortunately, the matters the Deputy is raising are matters for the independent tribunal of inquiry and not matters for the Taoiseach to address on the floor of the House.
The issue here relates to cost. It has been suggested in reports regarding this document that had it been made available to the tribunal at an earlier stage, it would have foreshortened the work of that tribunal——
That is a matter for the independent chairperson.
——therefore having implications for its eventual cost.
I have made my point.
I cannot comment on that really. It is a matter for the chairperson to adjudicate on in due course as to its significance, relevance or otherwise. It is not a matter for me to engage in.
As regards the ongoing work, it is expected that public hearings will take place during the course of this month. In so far as one can gauge, it will not be beyond this month. That is my best information. The report will be brought forward later this year. That is our best understanding of what is intended, based on the work that is ongoing there at the moment.
I accept that the content of the document, its implications and its impact on the matters under investigation are matters for the tribunal. I do not wish to comment on that, but I want to raise a question with the Taoiseach. Is it true that a Government Department withheld a document for ten years claiming legal privilege on it and has now made that document available for the second round of public hearings? Is that true, or not? I am not commenting on the content of the document, which is a matter for the tribunal. If it is true, however, we are owed some explanation as to why privilege was claimed on it in the first place and why it was lifted when the second round of hearings came up.
We are dealing with the costs that have accrued to the Department of the Taoiseach. I call An Theachta Ó Snodaigh.
With the reopening of public hearings it is difficult to gauge what the cost will be. Does the Taoiseach have any projected costs or figures in mind at this stage? Has there been a projected date for the conclusion of the tribunal? The Taoiseach will be aware that some of those under investigation by the Moriarty tribunal remain major tax avoiders, and the cost to the State as a result. Has the Government taken any lessons from the tribunals? Will it introduce measures, including legislation, to address the problem of tax avoidance by wealthy people who make fortunes here and use loopholes to avoid paying tax in this State? Some of them will probably benefit from the tribunal, even though they are not citizens, because their costs might be paid for them, although they are not paying tax in this country. Will that anomaly be addressed?
We are moving into new pastures now.
All I can say is that the sole member of the tribunal will not turn his mind to the question of third party costs until such time as he concludes his deliberations on the report. We await the report's findings and, as part of his job, the sole member will then make further legal decisions on those matters.
Public Relations Contracts.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the group established in his Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15558/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work of the group established within his Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16608/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:7 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the group established in his Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers is still functioning; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20712/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.
These questions relate to the findings of the Quigley report, which was published in 2005. That report highlighted the need for special care in cases where a proposed consultancy comprises an element of direct service to a Minister or Minister of State, particularly in the public relations or communications area, and-or where a Minister or a Minister of State suggests the name of a person or enterprise as being suitable.
As I outlined to the House previously following publication of the Quigley report, additional procurement guidelines were approved by the Government and are published on my Department's website. The guidelines were brought to the attention of all Secretaries General, who were asked to implement them and in future to bring them to the attention of all newly-appointed Ministers, and Ministers of State where relevant, in their Department or office.
The guidelines give the Secretary General to the Government and the Government secretariat a role in examining certain procurements. However, there is no special committee in my Department to oversee the awarding of public relations contracts by Ministers. Any workload arising from the application of these additional procedures is handled within existing resources of the Government secretariat.
The Government information service provides information about Government decisions. Every Minister who makes an announcement makes a Government announcement specific to a Department. What is the relationship between the Government information service and public relations firms contracted to Departments when the end result is much the same?
I would like to bring two cases to the Taoiseach's attention. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform launched a PR awareness campaign on knife crime in February, and he allocated €200,000 even though it never got off the ground. There has been a 72% increase in knife crime and the use of offensive weapons in five years that have led to proceedings. Three out of ten offenders are aged under 20. The aim of the campaign was to access social networking websites and promote the campaign in tandem with a national campaign in schools. The on-line campaign was a total flop. Only 17 followers made contact on Twitter and there were 39 friends on Facebook. There are 170,000 people between the age of 18 and 20 in Ireland, so this campaign has failed completely to resonate with the group for which it was intended. A PR firm was contracted to promote the campaign, but it stated that it only held six out of 12 planned workshops. That is 12 workshops across 733 secondary schools, which speaks for itself. In 2001, the "Cool Choices" alcohol awareness programme cost €50,000 and was off-line within five months.
Is there a system of monitoring public relations contracts on awareness campaigns approved by the Government? Does any group look at the advertising consultancies involved? What does the Taoiseach think of the Quigley report, produced in 2005? It recommended that the Department of Finance should consider providing advice on the monitoring and the recording of work done under those contracts and in respect of the quality of the work they carry out.
If there are any particular public awareness campaigns related to a Department, they should be referred directly to that Department. I do not have any information on those campaigns. As I said already, there is no group that oversees PR contracts. These are matters for individual Ministers and Departments. Arising from the Quigley report, a need was identified to bring forward guidelines. These guidelines were provided and the Secretaries General of all Departments are aware of them, and must utilise them where they are relevant. There is no group looking after that.
The Government information service has no role whatever in the procurement of PR contracts for Ministers and Departments. It is a matter for Departments to work with public procurement rules themselves.
Does the Taoiseach have a view on the recommendation of the Quigley report that the Department of Finance should consider offering advice on the quality of work produced in respect of contracts awarded? That was specifically about the Department of Finance.
That was about a sub-group consisting of representatives from the Department of Finance and the Government contracts committee, which carried out a review in accordance with the Quigley recommendations regarding the engagement of consultants. Guidelines consolidating various elements of previous guidelines, and augmenting them where appropriate, were prepared and published and circulated. That recommendation was implemented.
These guidelines, which were published in 2005, provided for a number of procedures, one of which was that where a Minister was engaging a consultancy firm or PR firm, then this would be notified to the Secretary General to the Government. How many times has the Secretary General been notified of consultancy or PR contracts that come under the terms of the guidelines? The procedures provided for consideration of such awards by the Government secretariat. On how many occasions has the Government secretariat considered the award of consultancy contracts?
It provided for procedures whereby the Secretary General to the Government would make recommendations to the Taoiseach in respect of appointment of consultants and PR contracts. Since the guidelines were introduced in 2005, on how many occasions have recommendations been made to the Taoiseach by the Secretary General to the Government?
I will provide the information I have here. The guidelines put in place a procedure that must be followed when a proposed consultancy or a contract for services comprise a significant element of direct service to the Minister or Minister of State, particularly in the PR or communications area, specifically providing advice or briefings, or where the Minister or Minister of State has provided the name of a person or enterprise that might be suitable. In such circumstances, the guidelines state that the Secretary General in the Department must notify the Secretary General to the Government. Having inquired about any aspects considered to be relevant, the Secretary General to the Government then makes a recommendation to the Taoiseach on whether special conditions should be observed in the procurement process.
Regarding the number of cases referred to the Government secretariat under the procedures, seven cases within the terms of the guideline have been processed so far. In September 2008, I agreed to the appointment to the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources of a consultant to conduct a facilitation exercise in connection with the consultation paper on next generation broadband. In 2007 one case was noted by my predecessor following consideration by the Secretary General to the Government regarding an invitation to tender for consultancy work at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to scope out a project to lead to the establishment of an independent electoral commission. Subsequently, the candidate concerned was not successful in the tender competition.
Two cases related to the appointment of an arts adviser at the Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism. My predecessor approved one of these appointments in 2005 following appropriate consideration by the Secretary General to the Government. Upon the resignation of the original post holder, my predecessor approved the appointment of a successor to the post in 2006.
The three other cases referred to the Secretary General to the Government were, on consideration by him, found not to fall within the scope of the guidelines and did not require consideration or approval. These related to the appointment of IT, PR and communications consultants.
Were there cases where the Secretary General to the Government made recommendations to the Taoiseach in respect of public procurement procedures?
Not to my knowledge. Regarding the criteria used by the Secretary General to the Government in considering consultancies, he is concerned that not even the perception of impropriety can arise. Within that broad principle there is full flexibility to have regard to any relevant considerations. I am not aware of any of the cases to which Deputy Gilmore refers.
Proposed Legislation.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:8 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15560/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:9 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16609/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
The Statute Law Revision Bill was published on 29 May 2009. This Bill is the only item of legislation relevant to my Department on the A list of the Government legislation programme for this session. It is hoped the Bill will be debated in the House in the autumn session.
This is a fascinating Bill. It repeals 1,350 obsolete Acts predating independence, some going back to penal days but which are not entirely without relevance. I note an Act dating to 1731 providing for the relief of the creditors of James Mead and George Curtis, late bankers of Dublin. Nothing much has changed. The repeal of pre-independence legislation is fascinating. We will finally bring the penal laws to an end, which is great news.
They are bringing in new ones.
Is there any chance the Government would prioritise legislation relevant to people living in the here and now? For example, where is the civil unions Bill, the heads of which were published last year and which we were promised would come before the House on a number of occasions? Is there a method for prioritisation?
The Government has been very lax regarding the amount of legislation being brought forward. There seem to be great delays — there are Bills going back to 2003 and 2004. Six Bills were promised on the list from May 2003 and the latest news is that they will be published in late 2009 or 2010. At this rate, we will end up dealing with matters applying today in the same way as we are dealing with the Statute Law Revision Bill and legislation from 300 years ago.
I never thought I would hear myself say this to the Deputy but the matters being discussed by him are relevant to the Order of Business.
That makes a change.
It is a major change.
I commend Deputy Gilmore for his sense of fascination.
I have a great sense of history. I have always wanted to see an end to the penal laws.
The Deputy's definition is far wider than mine. It is important to point out that while this is the only Bill within my Department's remit, the wider issue concerning the Bills on the Order Paper and the A and B lists are dealt with on an ongoing daily basis, as the Deputy would be aware, with monotonous regularity on the Order of Business. I can only deal with the Bill before me, which is a necessary tidying up exercise. We must ensure obsolete laws no longer form part of the Statute Book.
Dublin-Monaghan Bombings.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:10 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if all costs associated with the McEntee commission have been discharged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15575/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:11 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the final cost that accrued to his Department in respect of the McEntee commission; if all these costs have been discharged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16610/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:12 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his ongoing follow-up work regarding the report of the McEntee commission, the Barron reports and the reports of the sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20713/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, together.
The total amount spent on the McEntee commission of investigation was €2,632,702. All costs with regard to the commission of investigation have been discharged.
We are dealing with the cost of these commissions and we have debated them in the House. A unanimous view in respect of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings was sent by the House to the British Government and the House of Commons. Has there been any response to the agreed motion conveyed at the time?
I stated in earlier replies that the motion was noted but there has not been any formal response to date.
National Forum on Europe.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:13 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the reason for the decision to close down the National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15589/09]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:14 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the costs that have accrued to his Department since January 2009 in respect of the National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17397/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:15 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the decision to close down the Forum on Europe. [20714/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, together.
The decision to close the National Forum on Europe has been taken against the backdrop of the current budgetary position in which the Government finds itself, and the necessity to review all areas of expenditure. Since its establishment in 2001, the forum has provided a platform for debate and discussion on Europe in Ireland. The Government acknowledges its excellent contribution over the years and wishes to put on record its appreciation of the excellent work of its chairman, Maurice Hayes.
I also want to record my thanks to the current and former members, directors and staff of the forum and its many other participants, including those on the observer pillar. The Government is fully committed to ensuring the continuation of broad debate on the nature and importance of the European Union. However, the time has come to reassess how this is best done in light of the current budgetary conditions.
The Oireachtas has demonstrated that it can be an extremely effective location for such debate, as shown most recently by the comprehensive work of the sub-committee dealing with Ireland's future in Europe. The Government has committed to engagement with the political parties over the coming period to discuss how best to ensure that the Oireachtas can take the debate forward in the coming months, when our membership of the European Union is very much in the spotlight. I believe we should build on the excellent work of the sub-committee last year, which engaged in very extensive consultation with independent experts, political parties, advocacy and lobby groups.
In addition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is overseeing the development of a public awareness programme to improve public understanding of the European Union, how it functions and the implications and benefits of Ireland's membership. This will be developed in parallel with initiatives by the European Commission and European Parliament offices in Ireland. Expenditure by the National Forum on Europe to 31 May this year amounted to €401,817.
The research and findings following last June's Lisbon treaty referendum result demonstrated a low level of knowledge among the public about the European Union, its institutions and their workings and interactions. Accordingly, does the Taoiseach believe it was a wise decision to close down the National Forum on Europe? Does he also consider it desirable that this decision was taken unilaterally by the Government instead of being brought before the House for its consideration?
As I stated in my reply, I commend those who worked in the forum, its chairman, all who served it and those who regularly attended it. However, while the forum had many good sessions since the first Nice referendum, from which the Government's initiative for the forum arose, its impact on public awareness of the intricacies and detail of how the Union works was no greater perhaps to any measurable significant extent. I am not taking away from the forum's efforts, professionalism and good reports but there is a wider issue at stake with which one cannot expect a structure like the forum to deal. The question is how we incorporate European Union issues into the daily and weekly debates of the House so that people can understand how the European Union and its policies interact with their day-to-day lives.
That disconnect is not unique to Ireland. The Union's institutional framework is complex; it is the only example of a multi-nation system of governance in which member states share sovereignty in some areas, exclusive EU competence works in others and some areas are reserved for member states. It has an intricate and complex architecture which people may find off-putting. The only way to get over that is how we debate EU issues in the House.
We live in an era of interdependence. Many problems which span national borders can only be resolved through co-operation and the level of integration the European Union is pursuing which is unique compared to other parts of the world.
The Oireachtas, as the democratic assembly of the people, should be the central place where these EU issues are discussed and developed. As practising politicians and public representatives, we have a better prospect than most, in terms of democratic legitimacy and exercising our own political skills on these subjects, to bring relevance to the day-to-day importance of European issues and discriminate between what is important and not. This is an issue of political culture that needs to be addressed. As Ireland is moving to net contributor status in the Union, we must show that it was not simply a place from which we received assistance to develop various policies or sought financial recourse when required.
The foundations of this modern economy are based on our membership of the European Union in respect of how it works and functions, as well as by how it is influenced by what goes on in Europe. We have allowed that debate to be rather ad hoc in nature, rather than an integral part of how we discuss politics.
The Taoiseach mentioned the point about how to make the European Union more relevant to the ordinary citizen. One suggestion Fine Gael has made many times is to allocate half a digital platform for the parliamentary channel taken from the Dáil, the Seanad, the Oireachtas committees and the European Parliament. The report that is carried on a once-monthly basis is entirely inadequate and I would strongly support the Taoiseach's adoption of that suggestion.
Second, does the Taoiseach have a view on the use of the Seanad for far more frequent interactions with MEPs and organisations that deal with Europe, which could give presentations to the Seanad? Does he envisage changes in the roles of the Joint Committee on European Affairs or the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny? Obviously, the National Forum on Europe had a part to play and I have commended former Senator Maurice Hayes previously on his work. However, as the Taoiseach is aware and with respect to it, the forum did not attract the same response of which political organisations were capable. In the context of the referendum, it is probable that neither was of the size or scope for which one would wish.
I seek an initial response in this regard. During the run-in to the next Lisbon referendum, does the Taoiseach intend to reconstitute the National Forum on Europe? Does he envisage that the sub-committee he established after the Lisbon referendum, which conducted the analysis of it, will have a role? What is his view on the suggestion that he announce that politics will be made available as a public service to people as it happens? There always is an audience, however small, for the issues under discussion in this House, the Seanad, the Oireachtas committees and in the European Parliament.
Recently, the aforementioned Oireachtas sub-committee worked very well for the specific purpose for which it was set up. It had a focus and a timeline, as well as being a well-chaired and well-worked committee. All its members are to be commended on the commitment they showed while on the sub-committee and on their ability to do a specific job, which was well done. It was good to see those who have various positions on European issues, or specifically on the referendum or their interpretation thereof, coming to Leinster House to be questioned and to see discussion taking place from here, rather than taking place vicariously somewhere else. This should be followed up on and, as I noted in my reply, I am open to discussions on this issue. The Joint Committee on European Affairs and the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs have jobs to do, with which they will continue in any event. As for how Members can assist with awareness as we enter the second referendum campaign, doing so through an Oireachtas committee might be a basis from which we can work, based on the fine job that was done in recent months by the sub-committee.