Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That the Orders of Reference of the Select Committee on European Affairs be amended in paragraph (1)(a) by the deletion of '6 members' and the substitution therefor of '9 members'.".

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. 3 will be taken with No. 2 for the purpose of the debate. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I urge that the Seanad approve the motions to expand the membership of the Select Committee on European Affairs and to establish a sub-committee on Ireland's future in the European Union.

The sub-committee is being tasked by the Houses of the Oireachtas to analyse the challenges facing Ireland in the European Union following the Lisbon treaty referendum result and to make recommendations to enhance the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in European Union affairs. It will also examine ways in which we can improve public understanding of the European Union and its fundamental importance for Ireland's future. The sub-committee represents a vital element of our work to find a way forward after the Lisbon treaty referendum. It represents a new departure for the Oireachtas. We are creating a new inclusive process to analyse the challenges now facing Ireland in the Union and to report by the end of November. This crucial debate will be open and transparent. The debate will be also widely available to the public thanks to the media facilities in these Houses. I am grateful to Members for agreeing to work in an innovative way on the single, biggest foreign policy challenge we have had in the 35 years of membership of the European Union. By agreeing to step up to this task I hope we will leave behind the division of the campaign itself. There is nothing to be gained from re-fighting a referendum campaign that is over.

I hope we are deciding to look ahead and not to idle in the past. I hope too that people will recognise that respecting the sovereign will of the people means we have to understand fully the implications of that decision for Ireland's influence and standing internationally. We have shown that we are best when we work together and innovate to find solutions for the country. The committee can start its deliberations from a positive place. The results of the recent research into Irish people's attitudes to the EU show that we want Ireland to continue to be fully involved in the Union. A total of 70% of us agree that membership is a good thing, while only 8% disagree. I believe this is a strong and positive reflection of the intent of the Irish people.

The importance of the work of the sub-committee should not be underestimated. We cannot assume that our standing in the Union remains unchanged by the referendum result, because that is not the case. Nor should we believe the result has gone unnoticed in the wider world, especially in the international investment community because, again, that is not the case. We cannot delude ourselves that somehow or other the position we are in is a good one or is cost free. The task ahead is a serious one with far-reaching consequences. It demands that we undertake reasoned and considered deliberations. Ultimately, we must come together to chart a map that is best for us as a nation.

We also must be acutely aware of the widespread benefits European Union membership has brought to Ireland. At its most fundamental, I believe that in the 35 years since we joined the Union, our sovereignty has developed and strengthened. I asked members of an Oireachtas committee earlier today to consider the situation when the eurozone did not exist, when we had the benefit of our monetary sovereignty being tied to London. We had to wait for a telephone call from the Treasury to find out where we were going. Our economic independence has been greatly enhanced by European Union membership, with wider export markets and greater inward investment opportunities. Membership has been hugely beneficial to our agricultural sector and to rural Ireland. Across the board, therefore, in the economic, social and political fields, European Union membership has been fundamentally good for all our citizens. In short, the vibrant Irish society we have today would be unthinkable without our central involvement in the European Union.

We want to address the concerns expressed by the Irish people at the ballot box on 12 June. We will work here in Ireland and with our European Union partners to arrive at a fair, balanced and meaningful solution. There are many themes and issues to be addressed that were raised during the debate leading to the referendum and which have been debated since, for example, economic issues, social and moral issues, political issues, neutrality and the European Commission. The work of the sub-committee can make a real contribution in pointing the way forward for Ireland in Europe. We want to be at the heart of the European Union in order that our membership can continue to anchor our prosperity and advance our interests in a complex and rapidly changing world.

Since we voted on 12 June, 12 countries have ratified the Lisbon treaty. It is likely that by the end of this year at least 25, if not all 26, other member states will have done so. Will will find ourselves at that stage in an uncomfortable position. We must chart the way ahead in unison. This job lies not only with those who advocated a "Yes" vote, but also those who advocated a "No" vote. I believe we all had one objective in the referendum campaign, namely, what we believe to be best for the country. It is, therefore, important we work together. The sub-committee provides the opportunity to do this in a constructive, thoughtful way which mutually respects points of view and which will produce the best solution for the people.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, to the House. The failure to ratify the Lisbon treaty poses significant economic, social and political challenges for the country. We must pause and understand the implications for the national interest. The terms of reference for the sub-committee are designed to enable us to look to our future within Europe, evaluate our attitudes to the project of the European Union and reassert the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in this process. The House can and should play a greater role in European affairs. The establishment of this committee is timely, but the mechanism may not be correct. I listened with interest to the comments of Senator O'Toole during the Order of Business and I wonder why the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not ask the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs to set up a sub-committee, rather than go through this process. However, the establishment of the sub-committee is necessary. A very demanding deadline is in place for the sub-committee to report. It is vital that this work is done well, but I question why the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs was not asked to form a sub-committee to deal with this matter. It probably could have dealt with the matter more expeditiously than today's proceedings. We support the establishment of the sub-committee, but we have reservations about the manner in which it has been established.

Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche. The purpose of his visit is to establish the sub-committee which will analyse the issues arising from the failure to ratify the Lisbon treaty. We have reflected on this matter in recent months and I am weary from the many discussions with many people on the reasons for this failure. I am pleased the research body was established to examine the issues and to highlight the main reasons of concern to the public. It was interesting to learn that those who voted "No" still wanted to be a part of the European Union, which is important and we must not forget this. We are a part of Europe in terms of trade so there is a problem about how best to proceed. We do not wish to rehash the Lisbon treaty in its old format. That is gone out the door and we are not thinking about it. However, we must examine the consequences of the "No" vote and where we go from here. By the end of this year there will, perhaps, be 26 countries which have ratified the treaty and we may be the only country left out. This may put us in a very difficult situation and we could very easily be marginalised and vulnerable given that most of our trade is with other member states. This puts us in a dilemma on how to best proceed and on which areas we must concentrate.

The study seems to indicate that a lack of understanding about the contents of the treaty was relevant. It is important the sub-committee is set up to analyse and examine how we can reach out to the public. If people wish to be a part of the European Union we must inform them about what that involves. We must inform people of the role of the national parliament and how it is associated with the European Union. We must get this message across to the public. There were other relevant issues such as conscription, our national identity and other matters. However, a lack of understanding about the treaty was the main issue, which is interesting. If those who voted "No" understand what it means to be a part of the European Union it is possible they will become "Yes" people if we proceed with another referendum. I do not know the answers but it is important for reasons of economics, finance, social policy and foreign affairs.

The role of the national parliament must be enhanced in future. It was always our belief that the citizen did not understand what was happening in Europe. This was a major issue throughout the campaign. Such people felt their identity was lost, that decision making power was not here but in Europe. We must convince citizens that we have a sizable role, that the national parliament makes all decisions and that directives from Europe cannot be implemented unless they are endorsed by national parliaments. This is an important message to spread. It is important to provide an understanding of the European Union and Ireland's part in it. Do we, or do we not, want to be a part of Europe? This is the fundamental issue and I believe we want to be a part of it. The establishment of the sub-committee should analyse the challenge of how to reach out to the public and highlight our part in the future of Europe.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, to the House. The Minister of State knows my position on these matters.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before the Senator continues, it was agreed to take the two motions together.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That suits my comments. I see the need for a committee such as the proposed sub-committee. I look forward to proposing my colleague Senator Rónán Mullen to represent the independent group on the sub-committee.

As long as we ask the people to give a single answer to seven different questions, we will never get the answer we seek. We must contrive, find, invent or develop a way to have six different questions on six different issues as part of the same constitutional referendum. This is the only way to find out where people stand on these matters. We are creating a concert of opposition with the current approach. Some seven different people will have seven different reasons to oppose the treaty and will vote together accordingly. I do not have a difficulty with the motion to extend the Orders of Reference of the Select Committee on European Affairs by extending the membership or to do the work outlined to which I look forward. However, the following step is wrong. The Dáil has made mistake and acted ultra vires. The people who opposed the referendum looked for every sliver of information and every angle to come back at us. I believe we are now handing them ammunition to use against us and I will tell the Minister of State the reason. First, the only people who can appoint a sub-committee are the members of a committee and, second, the members of a sub-committee must, in all cases, by any set of conventions I have ever seen, be members of the main committee. Otherwise, a special committee must be set up, which is different. Perhaps that is what the Minister should be doing in this regard. We are not setting up a special committee; we are a parent committee setting up a sub-committee.

Regarding the Standing Orders of this House, and as far as I know they are the same in the other House, under Standing Order 69 we can establish a select committee. This House did that in October 2007 when we established the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The motion stated that the Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 70(1) to (9) inclusive. Standing Order 70(3) gives the committee "power to appoint sub-Committees and to refer to such sub-Committees any matter comprehended by its orders of reference ...". It is clearly within the remit of the Joint Committee on European Affairs to set up a sub-committee of the nature the Minister is talking about to do the job he has asked it to do. There is no doubt about that.

I am 21 years a Member of this House and the Minister has been a Member for nearly as long, if not as long — I cannot recall but we have shared time here together — and in all that time I have never heard of nor seen either House appoint a sub-committee of another committee. We always appoint a select committee. The Department of Foreign Affairs has tried to get around that today in various ways and it has failed to do it. Establishing two select sub-committees to come together in a joint sub-committee has never been done before and it contravenes the Standing Orders of the House. Under Standing Order 69 the Seanad may devolve to a committee any power it so wishes.

We have set up a committee with the power to establish sub-committees and to do all the Minister has asked it to do. This House can establish a select committee to do what he asks us to do. We do not have that power, nor does the Dáil, but nobody in the Dáil reads the rules, as I well know. They always do what they are told. They never read the rules. The Minister's adviser from the Department of Foreign Affairs is smiling because he knows I am right about that. The Members in that House do what they are told. They are like children. This concerns a select committee, however, and we cannot do it.

The Department of Foreign Affairs knew what it was doing because sub-section (2) of the motion on the Order Paper states that the sub-committee, the one we are trying to establish, "shall have the powers defined in Standing Order 70(1), (2) and (4) to (9) inclusive" but there is no reference to Standing Order (3). Did we ever see that before? The sub-committee we are establishing today, unlike any committee we have ever established in our time, does not have the power to establish a sub-committee. It is the only power it is not given, which means that somebody knew what was going on and they took the power to do that.

The Minister may believe he can get this issue through on a vote of the House but it is not that simple. I have no difficulty with the first motion but in the second motion the Minister is asking us to do something we do not have the power to do. He may still vote it through the House but that does not make it right. A minority with courage is the majority on his own. That is the way I look at these matters.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it is a moral question.

I want to bring something to the attention of the Minister and the Department of Foreign Affairs. The way we select these people is through the Committee of Selection in both Houses. Standing Order 88 states, "There shall be appointed at the commencement of every Seanad a committee to be known as the Committee of Selection, which, unless it shall have been otherwise ordered [in other words, unless we change the orders of reference of that committee, which we have not done] shall nominate the Senators to serve on Select or Special Committees ...". It does not have the authority to appoint people to sub-committees or to any other committees. I am a member of that committee and if this issue is forced through the House, I will have no option but to ask that we consult with the Parliamentary Counsel.

This is the type of issue on which we would make fools of ourselves but there are ways around it. We can either establish a special committee, which is the easiest option, or, if the Minister wants an additional five people on the Joint Committee on European Affairs, he should appoint five people to that committee and they will do the business for him but we must do it right. We should not leave ourselves open to the charge of acting ultra vires. The Oireachtas cannot afford to do that and in this regard we cannot afford to do it.

I ask the Minister to listen to my view. We do not have a problem with the first motion. The second motion is ultra vires and should be ruled out of order. I ask the Cathaoirleach to consider whether it is in order in the light of what I have just said.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hear what Senator O'Toole is saying and from the point of view of veracity it should be checked out. I am not sure whether precedents exist in terms of the committees we have established in this Oireachtas. We set up a committee on children's rights, which is part of the workload of the existing committee on the Constitution, and put aside a separate membership of that——

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a separate issue.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a distraction.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not true.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We also have an Oireachtas committee that deals with——

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am in favour of that. We should do the same again.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Boyle, without interruption.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened with care to the point that was made by Senator O'Toole. Senator Quinn made the same point at this afternoon's meeting of the Joint Committee on European Affairs. The last thing I want is to be involved in any controversy regarding the establishment of this sub-committee. Senator O'Toole is quite right — if the Houses were operating ultra vires their own rules, it would be a serious reflection on the House. I understand the approach being adopted in this motion was discussed with the House. The information available to me suggests that the secretariat that was examining this proposition regarded both approaches as equally valid. I refer to the approach advocated by Senator O'Toole, which is that the committee would have to take it upon itself to establish a sub-committee and members of the committee would then be assigned to it, and the approach which is being adopted. That is my advice. I have asked staff to check that again. It is the advice as I stand before Senators.

This approach is being taken for a reason. The Minister, Deputy Martin, wanted to have a debate in the House. He also wanted as many people as possible from all sides of the debate to enjoy membership of the committee. If one examines the current composition of the relevant committee, it is clear that those who have concerns about certain issues and negative feelings about the Lisbon treaty are not represented on it. We decided to do business in this manner for positive rather than for negative reasons. I assume Senator O'Toole, whose mind I can practically read, will respond by saying that if one is operating in a manner that is ultra vires, it does not matter whether one has the best intentions. I accept that it does not mean one is operating in a manner that is intra vires. I ask the Senator to accept my bona fides in this regard. I have been advised that this is an equally valid way of doing business.

I wish to respond to a couple of comments. I agree with Senator Alex White that Europe is so important to the people of this State that the bona fides of everybody who campaigned on the "Yes" and "No" sides are under scrutiny. Nobody on either side of the campaign said that Ireland should leave the EU. All involved said they supported Europe. If they were speaking truthfully, we all have an equal responsibility to work through this. The last thing I want, or anybody in this House wants, is for Ireland to be isolated within Europe. As I have said on numerous occasions, only to be accused of scaremongering, my biggest fear is that at the end of this year, this treaty will be ratified by all other member states. If they believe it is the best deal for their citizens, for their nations and for Europe as a whole, their right to want to move forward is equal to our right to want to make our decision.

We rightly and properly demand that the decision of the Irish people be respected by the other 26 member states. Equally, the other 26 states can say that while they accept that right, we must respect the fact that they want to move in a certain direction. That forces us to test all sorts of hypotheses that were put forward in the period leading up to June. I do not want to go there, however, because I do not believe it would be fruitful, progressive or right to refight the referendum. The reality is that the Irish people have said "No". I respect that decision even though I am one of the most disappointed people in this Chamber in that regard. Equally, the Irish people have said they want to stay in Europe. I want to respect that decision too. How do we produce a solution that addresses these contradictory positions? The establishment of this sub-committee is a good way of doing that.

I fully respect the bona fides of Senator O'Toole in raising the issue. I ask him to accept my bona fides too. Since I heard of his concerns, the results of my queries have indicated that there is——

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Minister of State does not mind me asking, from where did this advice emanate?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It emanated from the secretariat in the House.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State referring to the secretariat of this House?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State, without interruption.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State referring to the secretariat of this House?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. We understand this.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the secretariat of this House agree with that advice?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We caused questions to be asked both in the secretariat of the committee and within the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did the secretariat of the Seanad say this was an appropriate course to take?

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will give the Senator the name of the person in question. He can then decide for himself.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That sounds like it did not. It sounds like a "No".

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry——

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not expect the secretariat of a committee to understand the intricacies of the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator O'Toole has asked a valid question. The secretariat of the committee asked for advice on this from the Houses of the Oireachtas. As this issue was brought to my attention at 3 p.m. today, I took it very seriously. I will give the Senator the name of the official and he can check up on it.

Senators Ormonde and Alex White both raised the issue of information. There was a failure of information involved. From the time of the Irish Presidency in 2004, I have been advocating that there needs to be a sense of real communication between the Union and the citizens. The Union has to learn to speak to the hearts of the citizens, and it must learn to listen, because communication is a two-way process. It is right that the committee should examine how we do that. The research figures show that the only figures that stand out relate to the 42% of people who voted "No" because of the issue of their knowledge, while 47% abstained due to the same issue. It is important that this committee is open and that its activities are broadcast. It is important for the life of this nation that RTE does not consign the work of this committee to ten seconds on "Oireachtas Report". It is important that the people hear the arguments for and against the issues. If people make mistakes on either side of those arguments, it is very important that the people are convinced of the actual arguments.

The committee will have my support. I trust that the matter raised will be checked again. It is a matter for each individual House to rule what is in order and what is not in order within its own remit, and I understand this House has ruled that this is in order. Afterwards, I will provide to the Senator the name of the individual who gave us the advice.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is clearly saying the authorities in this House ruled it to be in order, and that it was put there after consultation with them. I find that hard to believe, but I have to accept his word.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Lest there be any ambiguity, it was the authorities of the Houses of the Oireachtas that gave the adjudication.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a very easy question to answer. I regularly go to the Seanad office where there is an old grey document that goes back to the foundation of the State. The people in there are the only people who know. If the Clerk's office in the House said this was in order, I would have to accept that point. The staff there know it backwards, but I would like to be told that.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The person who gave the adjudication on this is the person who, in this House and the other House, is in charge of the whole issue of establishing committees. If the House wants to establish that person's name, I have no problem with the House adjourning to allow the Senator to check that issue with that individual. It is a serious issue.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want any official's name mentioned.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, would it be in order for the sitting to be suspended pending the clarification of this point? What is the point in proceeding if this is a defective process?

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are we talking about curing the defect retrospectively? I do not think that is the way to proceed. I ask the Cathaoirleach to consider suspending the sitting, pending the clarification of this important matter so that we are not engaging in a farce.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This issue has been around since morning, and a number of people have spoken to senior officials. Senator Quinn raised it at a committee meeting this morning. I am proceeding with the motion.

Joe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, can I suggest we proceed with item No. 2? Nobody has a difficulty with that. I also suggest that we defer No. 3 until business tomorrow morning. Nothing will happen between now and then. If the advice comes back in the interim, I will stay silent.

Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would support that.

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was going to move ahead, but there seems to be total agreement on No. 2 and the issue is with No. 3. My view is that there is a question mark over it. I accept that the Minister of State has said his senior official has given that information, and I take his word for that. I want to move ahead with business and I do not think we should delay over No. 2. There is a question about——

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can it be postponed until the morning? Why proceed with something that is possibly defective, when we can check it out overnight?

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to deal with No. 2 first. Is No. 2 agreed?

Pat Moylan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Having read No. 3, I think we should suspend until the committee meets in relation to No. 2. I will come back to the House then. Is that agreed? Agreed.