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.