Alex White (Labour)

Along with Senator O'Toole, I have no difficulty with the proposal in the first motion but on the second motion Senator O'Toole has to be right in what he said. It cannot be the case that the Houses of the Oireachtas can go over the head, so to speak, of an Oireachtas committee and purport to set up a sub-committee of that existing committee. Senator O'Toole's point is an unanswerable one. It has to be right. In those circumstances it is clear we need the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. I will not repeat the points the Senator made other than to endorse them.

I agree largely with what Senator Boyle said but I respectfully disagree with the example he gave of the committee on the constitutional amendment on children. As it is a free-standing Oireachtas committee, it does not derive its powers or origins from any other committee. It was entirely set up by the Houses of the Oireachtas. A full independent committee does not come from anywhere else, whereas a sub-committee derives its existence from its head committee. That is why I suggest we should not proceed with this proposal, which is wrong, in its current form. I agree with what Senator Boyle said about the intent of what we are doing. In some ways, it is a pity this problem has arisen to distract us. We have to deal with the distraction, however. If the motion were to note "an intention" on the part of the committee to establish a sub-committee, it might be possible for us to proceed if we were to endorse that intention. I am just canvassing that to my colleagues as a way out of this problem. If the House wants to go further, it could recommend to the Joint Committee on European Affairs that it should establish a sub-committee along the lines set out in the motion. That would be in line with the intention of the proposal. It seems to me that it would not offend against Standing Orders or against the procedures we have in this House. We should not reduce these things to procedural niceties. I accept that nobody has done that. Procedures are as important as other matters which appear to have greater substance. They are there for a reason.

I agree with other Senators that the issues which arose in the context of the Lisbon treaty debate should be explored in a timely and efficient manner. It is absolutely vital that the deliberations of this committee are not seen to be internal to these Houses and to those described by Senator Boyle as the "political class". I appeal to the Minister of State to ensure they are not. I know this appeal will be taken up. If the committee is seen to simply shift things around a little, dust them down a bit and have a number of meetings during which the issues are thrashed out and rehearsed internally in this political environment, it will not have the credibility it needs to have and it will not do the job it needs to do. There is a manifest need for such a debate to be conducted. I appeal to the Minister and to my colleagues who will be on this committee to ensure that happens. I understand a distinguished Member of this House is being mooted as the Chairman of the committee. It is important for all the members of the committee to agree that the debate should be held in as public a manner as possible.

Senator Ormonde and others spoke about the reasons for the "No" vote. Many reasons have been canvassed. Research has been done. It is difficult to see what the committee can do about the question of people not understanding the treaty. What would be the nature of the debate it would have on the fact that people did not understand it? I accept that we need to reflect on what Senator Boyle has rightly said was the failure of all the political parties in this regard. There must be a real sense of self-criticism in this respect. At the risk of falling out with Senator Boyle and his colleagues on the other side of the House, the principal responsibility in this regard lies with the Government. Other groups have responsibilities too. The Government failed to communicate the actual contents of the treaty to the people of Ireland. In such circumstances, there was a signal failure.

I would like to speak about the role and functions of the Referendum Commission. It would be useful for the committee to explore the expectations we placed on the commission. Senator Boyle and I are members of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, which has touched on this matter. What is the role of the commission? What do we expect from it? Perhaps our expectations were too high. Perhaps a different type of commission is needed. It has been commented on that it was odd that just one interest group distributed the actual treaty itself — the book comprising the treaty — throughout the country during the campaign. It was not distributed by the Government or by any of the parties supporting the treaty. The group that distributed the document, which it was entitled to do, was one of those advocating a "No" vote. Why should we continue to believe that people cannot absorb detailed information? They can absorb much more than we give them credit for. Some people — I do not refer to the Minister — believed in the notion that all we needed to do was to get this thing over the line. We cannot just hope that people will come with us as we try to get it over the line. It must be explained. The proposed sub-committee would assist with that process.