Dan Boyle (Green Party)

My thinking is the same as the Senator's on that. We also have an Oireachtas committee on climate change and energy security, which deals with functions that exist in two other Oireachtas committees. If it is a question of phraseology about a sub-committee as opposed to a special committee, perhaps motions could be phrased along that line but however we name this group, and it is named a sub-committee as of now, it is a time specific and issue specific grouping which falls into the remit of a special committee. I believe that is the intent of the motion before the House and we should address it along those lines. I accept that no one in this Chamber is arguing against the need for such a grouping and we should progress along those lines.

The workload of this committee must be specific and should not be distracted by the type of ancillary debate that has plagued European issues since we first had referenda in this country. I accept Senator O'Toole's point that the direct "Yes" and "No" referendum is probably what has led us here but the ancillary debate has been about shooting the messenger, daring the right of people to think differently and introducing extraneous matters regarding the roles of previous court decisions and the ability to make effective arguments. The only deterrent to making effective arguments on European referenda has been our role within the political class. As politicians we have failed to present effective arguments that people could believe.

I hope this committee, however it is structured or however it adheres to the Standing Orders of this House and the other House, will address its workload on those grounds. If we are to persuade people that the future of Ireland lies in an enhanced European Union, it can only be done by seeking to persuade people and not seeking to use other means to deflect from arguments we have been unable to make effectively to date.