Mr. Robert Nesirky:

There were a few references in the questions to education, Erasmus and, tangentially, Britain. The Erasmus plus programme was mentioned in terms of university education. I remind the committee that the programme is an amalgamation of three different key actions. It is a much broader church than members might think. It enables informal and non-formal education across the EU member states and outside the Union. Erasmus is a key part of the education aspect, which is the tide that raises all boats. There is currently a campaign at European level called "Erasmus times ten". Although that is a bit of a reach goal, it is asking the Commission to increase Erasmus funding in the upcoming budget.

The National Youth Council of Ireland, NYCI, does not have policies on Irish neutrality, tax or European defence. On a broader level, Ireland has a global responsibility to be an influencer when it comes to facing up to multinational corporations and addressing atrocities committed around the world, on the European borders and, depending on who one asks, within our borders. We are in Europe. This report was a vision that was laid out by Mr. Juncker. He is a leader and it is his job to present a vision. In the conversations that we are having here and that are happening across Europe, we can tailor it down to a form with which we are all happy. While there were some criticisms of tax and neutrality in this room, we also have to remember that we are part of these conversations. We are one of 28 parties, currently, that will be involved.

There was a question about voting at age 16, which I will touch on very briefly. It concerned young people and the weight of their vote, which could have a huge impact globally. It was portrayed in a slightly negative light. Young people are not a homogenous group. One cannot point at them and say they are all going to vote for this party or influence an election in a particular way. That is a key thing to remember. Who cares if it would have a massive effect? At least it would be democratic and at least it would be following those lines.

In Senator Craughwell's discussion of empowerment, he put forward a very interesting idea. We need to acknowledge the institutions that already contribute to this engagement, including the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government as well as Dáil na nÓg and Comhairle na nÓg. The scrutiny of policy to which the Senator referred sort of exists already under the NYCI young voices programme. Why do young people need to mirror the Parliament to scrutinise legislation? Why do we need to be a mock-up of the Parliament? Why do we not create an institution or facilitate this kind of scrutiny in a way that is youth friendly? Maybe the parliamentary structure is not the best format for a young person to debate policy. I can also understand the symbolic level of engagement it would allow and it sounds pretty great. In the UK youth parliament elections last year, 1 million people voted. That is an incredible mandate for those young MYPs and for the members of the Scottish youth parliament and the youth senate. There are really good examples just on our doorstep and we also have some fantastic institutions in Ireland. It is a question of constantly evaluating what we are doing and asking how we can do it better. Perhaps Ms Mulhall would like to address the issue of the vote at age 16. She has quite a lot of experience with it.