JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 11 Mar 2008

The committee will continue with an exchange of views on the Lisbon treaty. Today's delegates are from the Irish Countrywomen's Association and the Union of Students in Ireland. There is a long agenda so I ask members to be short and succinct.

From the ICA, I welcome its national president, Ms Carmel Dawson, and Ms Breda O'Hanrahan, its PRO. This meeting forms part of the ongoing dialogue the committee has established with different groups in society, from the social partners and various interest groups, with reference to the Lisbon reform treaty. At the end of the process, the committee will produce a report and as part of this process will hold meetings in the regions. Six are already listed, with the option of a further two. The delegates' views will be incorporated into the proposed review.

From USI the delegates are Mr. Hamidreza Khodabakhshi, Mr. Paul Lynam, eastern area officer, and Mr. Peter Mannion, education officer. They are all welcome. Perhaps the USI delegates might proceed first, as accords with the seating order. The normal practice is an opening address of ten or 15 minutes followed by responses from committee members. The ICA will have the same opportunity. This order is subject to the delegates' agreement. In some cases, the two groups speak first and if that is their wish, then the committee members can put their questions to both groups.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to give feedback on this subject.

I want to clarify that USI has not yet established a position regarding the Lisbon treaty, whether to support or condemn a vote for it. However, the debate has started. Peter Mannion, our education officer, will brief the delegates regarding the education policies contained in the treaty. Paul Lynam will give the union's views on climate change. I will speak on the democracy aspect of the treaty.

We know that each year thousands of Irish students spend a semester or a year abroad studying under the EU's Erasmus programme. Among the core principles that allow this is the free movement of people across Europe in accordance with the Schengen Agreement. This has opened huge opportunities for students to encounter new forms of education throughout the entire continent. The EU-sponsored European credit transfer system, known in colleges as the credit transfer, the ECTS, has meant that students are now freely able to transfer from university to university, or college to college, in Europe and that they will not lose their place in the academic system.

Across the third-level sector there has been a marked increase in students studying what we would consider pro-European courses. Many students will study European languages, alongside business and European law. USI is a member of the European Students Union and of EURODOC, the European Council for Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers. As education officer, I work with those bodies and from time to time they co-ordinate certain events with us. USI was one of the organisations they asked for feedback on the last review of the constitution, namely, the Nice treaty. They also give us training on aspects of the European Union which we in turn feed back to students.

While we have no firm position on the Lisbon treaty we do have policies on certain policies within the treaty. Most important, Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes the right to education in European law and explicitly references free education. This mirrors the stance of USI on the right to free education. Education is defined in Article 2(e) of the treaty as one of the areas where the Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of member states, preserving education as an area for national Governments but as one where the Union can play a useful and helpful role as it has done in the past.

Article 5(a) requires that the Union take into account the need for a high level of education when implementing its policies and Article 158 protects the veto of the Irish Government over any international agreement on the trade services where those agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services. This provision protects the unique Irish education system from a one-size-fits-all policy from Brussels that might not be appropriate to our needs and it is to be welcomed. We are the only country having this referendum and the ESU has been following our progress on this matter very closely.

USI has a strong background on the issue of climate change and this year we have been working closely with our allies on the subject. This has been a major issue for the action group against climate change and students against climate change. Many students have become involved and it has become a major issue for everybody across the world in the past couple of years.

The Lisbon treaty is very positive for tackling climate change. For the first time it has amalgamated the positive approach to climate change in previous treaties and has made the issue a priority for the European Union, which is very welcome. It provides a necessary framework for Ireland to achieve the goals of improving energy and renewable energy resources and cutting back on CO2 emissions. It allows us, with other European countries, to finally tackle a major issue so that we can play our part in the world. These measures are much very welcome. It is important that Ireland, being a small country that relies very much on fossil fuels, works with its fellow European countries to finally tackle the issue. We have great potential for renewable energy sources, such as wind power, and this treaty has done everything we have asked for on climate change.

We have, however, one area of concern, which relates to the need for clarity on nuclear power. Ireland is a nuclear-free country and we want to ensure that continues. We do not want the European Union to actively encourage nuclear energy in other countries. Overall, we believe the Lisbon treaty is very positive in prioritising climate change for the first time. It makes it a major issue and recognises it is the biggest threat we face in the 21st century. USI welcomes the positive steps taken on climate change in the Lisbon treaty.

One of the main concerns of USI is over the debate which the treaty will initiate among members on the issues of neutrality and democracy. We do not have a clear mandate over the issue of neutrality but there have been many anti-war motions over the years. The Iraq war was a huge issue in USI and we supported an anti-war movement in that case. We want to see Irish neutrality preserved.

I am sure many will. We want the neutrality of Ireland to be preserved in the treaty. Article 28.8 limits the scope for military operations within the European Union. However, we have concerns, being an island and one of the most strategic places in Europe with a transatlantic position between Europe and America, and we want our neutrality to be supported by Government with regard to the treaty. If any decisions were made that affected the current position we would plead with the Government to support Irish neutrality.

Another issue of concern to us, as it is to members, concerns voting arrangements. We see the treaty as bringing accountability back to Parliaments and the people. It is to be welcomed that the EU institutions and bodies, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, will be made more accountable, rather than decisions being made by a minority of people.

One of the concerns we have is the issues addressed by the citizens' initiative in the treaty. We want to get a clear line on how it will work and how the Government will support it for the Irish citizen, as this is one of the issues of which we have much experience. We have submitted a petition with many signatures, but the petition seems to be filed away in this building — I do not know where but I would be glad to find it. We want to see the approach the Government will take and what clear indication it will give students. The number of student campaigns and the collection of signatures give a very clear indication of interest in the treaty. It would not be a problem for organisations such as the Union of Students in Ireland in conjunction with the European Students Union to organise a campaign and we want to see how this is followed up by the Government.

Another issue is the role of scrutiny for national parliaments. We are not satisfied with the debate on scrutiny. We want to see the issue of scrutiny debated by society. Denmark is a good example where debate is held at local constituency level and the parties will make a decision on that outcome. All the political parties, with the exception of the Green Party, have taken a stance on the Lisbon reform treaty but from what we have seen the debate has not been initiated among their supporters. Certainly, among the membership of the Union of Students of Ireland, there seems to be vague idea of what the Lisbon reform treaty means and what effect it will have on the country. This is of major concern. Our members are young and are just starting to join the workforce and they want to travel and work around Europe. We have organised a debate on the treaty to take place on Wednesday, 26 March during the course of our congress. Following that debate, I hope there will be an emergency motion and USI will take a stance on the treaty.

We have a few concerns on the procedures for voting. The ballot for the last general election was announced at a time when for practical reasons USI voters could not have voted. A Thursday at the end of May, during examinations, is not a good time for students to go out and vote. In general, Thursday is a bad choice because students must return home and try to organise their ballot card. We urge the joint committee and the Government to organise the ballot for a time that is suitable for all students, preferably after the second week in June and at a weekend when students have finished their exams and can get home to vote. In addition, we are asking for the facility of postal voting to be promoted in the colleges to ensure that the votes of the large population of students will be counted as the Lisbon reform treaty will have a significant effect on their future.

I am national president of the Irish Countrywomen's Association. I do not have a prepared submission because our organisation does not take a position on any treaty. Our obligation to our members is to facilitate debate and invite Members of the Oireachtas to come and inform them of the facts of the treaty. They can then make up their minds. We encourage our members to vote, but as a non-political organisation we cannot take a position.

The ICA has 14,000 members who range in age from 16 years up to 100 years. We have spoken to the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Dick Roche, who has agreed to come and provide speakers at our college in Termonfeckin. If possible, we will move around the country. We will listen to the debate. It is all about informing people.

I welcome both delegations. As USI presented first, I compliment it on its in-depth analysis of the treaty. It is particularly important to hear its viewpoint because we have heard quite a few what I believe are mistruths in recent weeks about the treaty bringing about a privatisation of the education system and ultimately a move away from free education. I could not find anything in the treaty to support this contention. It was an effort by some to misinform, based on commercial semi-State services which have more to do with transportation, wind energy and security of energy rather than health and education. It was a scare tactic and I am delighted USI has taken the position it has.

When politicians peruse documents and come to a standpoint it can be difficult to convince the public of our bona fides. Various interest groups, including the social partners, have come before the committee and put forward their proposals. USI is also seen as an opinion former by its membership and within society, which will be comforted to see USI's position is that the treaty does not include anything which will affect the delivery of free education. If I read correctly, USI states that if anything, the treaty strengthens the notion of free education and the only competencies which the Commission will hold with regard to education involve supporting, enhancing and co-ordinating what national governments do. I commend USI for this.

USI has raised a number of concerns and this is welcome. I hope the committee will assist USI by providing the clarification required, particularly with regard to questions raised during the slideshow presentation. USI raised matters such as climate change and also neutrality, which the president addressed. Other issues were raised with regard to the citizens initiative. We also raised issues with regard to the mechanics of this and Deputy O'Rourke did so recently. We will try to assist USI, through the secretariat, to find more answers to the questions raised.

I also welcome the delegation from the ICA and I am sure the committee will endeavour to provide any assistance we can give it in its efforts to inform its members.

I welcome both delegations. It is interesting to have them here. I regret I was delayed by a few minutes. We do not all live in Dublin, as the ladies know.

I note USI will not make up its mind until March 26, which is its congress day.

This is entirely a matter for USI. Of all groups, young people have been greatly interested in Europe. Students all over Ireland have experienced huge cultural changes because many young people from other countries live here, which we enjoy greatly and embrace. We wish more lived here because they give young people an additional wonderful level of understanding. I hope when the union meets at the Bettystown hotel they will agree with the treaty.

Mr. Lynam said he hoped the referendum would not be held during the last week of May or the early part of June but that will be the case. I do not know whether that is bad or good news. It is bound to be within the timeframe Mr. Lynam outlined as not being suitable. However, I hope it will not put him or his members off voting. Following the last general election, did USI conduct a survey or carry out internal research on how many students voted? Did they vote in their home constituencies or did they vote where they were domiciled? Athlone has a large third level college and one of the students said he thought ten out of 3,000 students voted. Those whose vote was at home in their county of origin did not return to vote and they did not have a vote in Athlone.

If on 25 March, the USI decides to support the treaty, which we would welcome, would thought be put into enabling students to vote in their colleges rather than in their constituencies? Did the USI conduct a survey on how many voted in the general election rather than saying it does not suit students? That is the date and there are ways around it. If the union declares itself to be enthusiastic about the treaty, will steps be taken to overcome the issues around the date? We would like to hear something positive from the union. Young people are extremely positive, which we very much welcome.

The treaty is about education and Europe has been hugely about education and movement of people. The Erasmus programme is one of the most wonderful European directives whereby young people such as Mr. Lynam can take off to Tuscany and so on. Many foreign students have travelled to Ireland. I hope the USI will be enthusiastic about the treaty and if it announces it supports the treaty and is pro-Europe at Bettystown, I hope it will also announce a plan where students will be put forward to vote in their old or new constituencies. This is important. The union can say that the date does not suit students now, because it is advising the committee, but when the date is announced, it will not be good enough to say a date does not suit students. The union has the means to ensure people vote.

The only way all of us made it to this committee was through people's votes. If we had not been busy lining up our constituency and ensured voters who moved recently into the constituency changed addresses, a few of us would not be here. It is important that the union does that and I thank the delegation for coming in again.

I also thank the ICA and I compliment Ms Dawson on her appearance on "Questions and Answers" last night. The association has taken a stance on the centres of excellence and she did very well. Ms Dawson clearly had her mind made up and it was the correct stance to take from many perspectives. The ICA will not take a stance on the treaty because it is a non-political body.

That is a noble enough stance. I hope many ICA members will be won over by what we will say and by the idea of voting for what we think is a progressive treaty. Having been won over, I hope the association will hold meetings in various areas. I believe it will hold an international conference in early May.

I know that. I am honoured to have been asked. I thank the ICA for that invitation and I will not be partisan or political on that occasion. However, I will talk about women and their role. Surely nothing is more proper than that one should debate that. I hope information on the treaty will be disseminated and suggest that the Minister of State, Deputy Dick Roche, be invited to an ICA meeting to talk about it.

I thank both groups for attending today. The juxtaposition of the two groups is very interesting. Chairman, you are doing great work on this matter. We will all be speaking at public meetings on the treaty. We will be starring in various places throughout the country and we await the outcome of meetings.

I also extend a warm welcome to the students and to Ms O'Hanrahan and Ms Dawson, whom I met in Clonmel on a previous occasion. This referendum should be held on a date which would allow students maximum say. As the parent of students in University College Cork, I believe it should be held at a weekend to facilitate maximum support from students.

I would like to be involved in disseminating information to local ICA guilds. The time and venues of regional meetings may not suit everyone but when meetings are held in large urban centres, such as Clonmel, all interested parties should be invited so that a balanced view is heard and a truly democratic decision taken when the referendum is held. I hope these meetings will be worthwhile events with viewpoints shared and a consensus reached.

It is lovely to see representatives of USI and the ICA here. I will read their presentations with interest. I am delighted to meet Ms Dawson once again.

I join in welcoming the delegates to the meeting and thank them for their presentations.

I understand the framework outlined by the ICA regarding its non-political constitution. The association's main role in the referendum campaign will be in allowing the flow of information to its members and in answering their questions. What is the main question ICA members have regarding the Lisbon treaty?

I also thank the representatives of USI for attending. They speak about the failure of the Oireachtas, so far, to scrutinise the Lisbon treaty and about our role in the European political process. The comments of the USI delegation are important in setting the tone and show how USI members view the work of the Oireachtas. The work of this committee is an attempt by all political parties to remedy the points made. The process that will unfold once the Bill and our report are published will be as intensive as most impartial people can hope for. Perhaps the USI delegation, when talking to its members about the limitations of the Oireachtas carrying out this kind of work, could acknowledge the type of work this committee does. One outcome that will result from the Lisbon treaty is that committees such as this will play a greater role in future.

What will be the decision-making process at the conference in Bettystown? Will there be speakers for and against? Will USI invite outside speakers to address the conference on that issue?

I welcome both delegations and was pleased to hear the presentations. I will start with USI because its representatives made their presentation first.

I am pleased to hear the positive comments made by the USI representatives about Europe, the European Union and all the benefits that have flowed to students due to Ireland's membership of the Union. The Erasmus programme was mentioned as was the greater mobility that exists for students in different countries. Credit was given for the fact that educational qualifications from one member state are now recognised in other member states. That is very progressive as far as students are concerned, as it means that an education can be genuinely European. It is possible to start a degree in one university and complete it somewhere else.

Students in general have been more comfortable with the idea of European citizenship complementing their national citizenship. The Lisbon treaty notes that the primary citizenship is national but European citizenship is complementary. As students have lived and worked in Europe, they are comfortable with that idea.

It is interesting that USI has not yet adopted a position on the treaty but intends to do so at the end of the month. Like others, I would like to know how it will arrive at that decision, regardless of what the decision will be, and whether it intends having a formal debate on the issue.

As the delegation is probably aware, I am a member of the Green Party. We had a positive internal debate with as many people as possible speaking both for and against the treaty from the floor. There were key speakers for and against and it was a democratic exercise. A majority of our members voted in favour of the treaty, although we were not able to take an official position as we failed to reach the two thirds majority required by our constitution. I encourage such debate and I believe it is healthy.

How will USI communicate to its members the reason it is advocating a "Yes" vote, once the leadership takes that position, given there are 14,000 members? Will the union organise other debates? As with the Irish Countrywomen's Association, members of groups may heed what the leadership of the organisation encourages in terms of a vote on the treaty, but may not necessarily be bound by that advice unless they are persuaded that it makes sense to support the treaty and vote "Yes". How will the leadership communicate that to the members?

The issue of nuclear energy was raised. That is an issue very close to the hearts of the Green Party. It is correct that one of the protocols attached to the Lisbon treaty contains the EURATOM Treaty, which supports and encourages the development of the nuclear industry within the European Union. However, even if the Lisbon treaty is not ratified, the EURATOM Treaty still exists and still has effect. It originated in 1957 and it is disappointing that a sunset clause was not agreed during the negotiations whereby the EURATOM Treaty would expire by a certain year. A declaration attached to the Lisbon treaty was adopted. Ireland was one of the states that signed up to it on the basis that we wished to see the EURATOM Treaty revised. There is great potential in that commitment to reconsider the EURATOM Treaty to give renewable energy the preferential status that nuclear energy has in the EU's research funding.

Under the treaty, over 1 million signatures from a significant number of member states would constitute a citizens' initiative. One million Irish students would not do, as signatures would have to come from a significant number of member states. Students are at an advantage because they can easily network with students in other countries and will be able to put a petition forward. There is a petitions committee in the European Parliament which deals mainly with the failure of EU states to implement EU law. The citizens' initiative will be a different type of petition because it asks the Commission to initiate new legislation. If it is felt that the EU has not drawn up legislation in an area in which the treaty empowers it to do, the 1 million signatures can be directed at the Commission which initiates legislation. It is not obliged to follow through. USI said that in its experience petitions are often ignored. Lobbying directed at the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which have a role in working with the Commission to produce new legislation, could be very successful.

Committees such as this in national Parliaments fulfil a role in monitoring EU draft legislation. We expect greater resources for this when the Lisbon treaty is ratified. The treaty allows us eight weeks to monitor legislation and raise a yellow card if it breaches the principle of subsidiarity.

I will communicate USI's wish that the referendum not be held on a Thursday, to my colleagues and ensure that the Government is aware of the difficulty it causes USI members. It is never possible to find an ideal date.

I respect the fact that the ICA does not call on its members to support a "Yes" or "No" vote for the Lisbon treaty but provides them with as much information as possible. I hope that, as others have said, it will be possible for it to inform its members through leaflets, debates and so on. Its members might like to focus on the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it has many positive aspects. It extends the civil and political rights that we enjoy through our membership of the European Union and names social and economic rights and gives them a legal basis. ICA members are probably aware that much of the employment and equality legislation which has benefited women is a direct result of our membership of the European Union. The Charter of Fundamental Rights continues that process, by providing a legal basis for many rights, including those of the elderly, children and so on, that are dear to women's hearts. I hope the ICA will highlight those points.

I join my colleagues in welcoming the USI and ICA delegations to this meeting and urge them to encourage their members to participate in the forthcoming referendum. The first challenge we face is to arouse the interest of people who are willing to vote. There are many positive aspects to the USI submission here that I hope will enable it to support the treaty. Our involvement in the European Union has significantly changed the education map here for the better. Our guests discussed some of the individual elements, namely, the various exchange programmes, etc. I am of the view that some aspects of the Lisbon treaty which they highlighted will also have a positive effect. Particular reference was made to the Charter of Fundamental Rights which enshrines in European law the right to an education and explicitly mentions free education. Our guests also referred to climate change which, for the first time, is being enshrined in a European treaty as, in global terms, the greatest challenge we face. That is a positive development. Those from the USI will be obliged to embrace this topical issue on behalf of the younger generation.

The role of the national Parliaments which, again, is being given explicit recognition under the Lisbon treaty was mentioned. The Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill and the treaty deal comprehensively with the issue of neutrality. There will be no threat to Irish neutrality. Predictions and prophecies were made to the effect that young Irish people would be obliged to serve in a European army. That has not happened and will not come about under the Lisbon treaty. People have nothing to fear in respect of this matter.

The Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which deals with a huge volume of European decisions and legislation is meeting at present. It scrutinises such decisions and legislation from an Irish perspective and liaises with other Oireachtas committees in order to form an Irish view on them. Its opinions are communicated to the relevant persons and institutions through various channels open to Ireland as a member state of the European Union. Scrutiny of all things European is carried out on a clear and transparent basis within the Oireachtas.

I respect the position of the ICA as an apolitical organisation. It is sometimes safer for an organisation to be apolitical. However, the ICA has an important role to play in influencing and encouraging people to examine the information available. In addition, it has a responsibility to make information available in circumstances where people find it difficult to access. We should not be under any illusions in this regard. Many will not examine the nitty-gritty details of the Lisbon treaty. They will want to be informed, on a very basic level, as to whether the treaty will be good for Ireland or whether it contains anything about which we should be concerned.

If the members of the ICA are of the view that our involvement and participation in the European project since 1973 have been positive experiences, they should vote yes to the Lisbon treaty which will strengthen Ireland's role within the European Union and help us play an even more important part in the coming years. If people believe we have played a significant role, they should vote yes. However, I accept that our guests cannot direct people to vote one way or the other and that they must merely provide information and, I hope, encourage people to vote in the referendum. The latter is, after all, the basis of democracy.

I apologise to both delegations for not being here for their presentations. I was obliged to attend another meeting at 2 p.m. from which I have just rushed away in order to be present here.

I do not know what was said earlier. However, I gather from the contributions of other members that the USI will adopt a position on this matter at a special meeting to be held later this month. I am delighted it is taking time to decide on how its members should vote in the forthcoming referendum. The leaflet distributed to members by USI shows that it is well informed. It has dealt with the issues about which most of us are concerned. USI has a good policy on climate change and the environment which it recognises are integral to the reform treaty. The leaflet also provides information on other areas.

In previous referendum campaigns arguments opposing various European treaties were made by those who campaigned for a "No" vote. Clearly the arguments are more or less the same as they concern our neutrality and, as some previous speakers have stated, things have not really changed with regard to our neutrality even since the Single European Act and various referenda on issues such as the Nice treaty.

It is important the people are informed of the facts of this treaty and what it concerns. We have had various other groups in here over the past number of weeks and on this occasion, when the date is eventually announced, people will be informed and a serious campaign will be fought. It will take place not just through the media but in the various centres throughout the country in which we as the European affairs committee, representatives of the Council of Europe and various political parties will be present to inform people of what is happening.

Like USI, I would be concerned about the date of the treaty referendum. At this stage it seems the date will be in June and some USI members will have finished exams at that stage. Others will have booked working holidays abroad or have left the country, having no opportunity to vote in the referendum. Other students will be doing later exams. The sooner we get a date for the referendum, the more we can focus on getting people to vote.

We saw the problems we had with the last general election, held on 24 May last year, in trying to get students to vote.

The Chairman was not too far behind me anyway. I know students will vote on this because they will be or are informed. They are interested in these issues and political groups in universities throughout the country, such as Young Fine Gael, will play their role to ensure members are informed and that people will vote on the day.

I grew up in a house where the Irish Countrywomen's Association was part of my life as my mother used to arrange the monthly meetings in members' houses from time to time. We are going back a few years now but I know how important the role played by the Irish Countrywomen's Association is in the country.

This is particularly true for people new to the country as they can meet others and become part of the Irish Countrywomen's Association. These people can relate to each other. The association also organises lectures by important people from time to time at its meetings.

The association can still play a very important role in this process. People talk to each other, although I do not mean women talk the whole time——

I was very careful with what I stated. Some of my colleagues have other things in mind. When a group of people are at a meeting, I know how they can talk and relate to each other. As the association is producing an information leaflet on the treaty putting the facts before its members, I am convinced a majority of people will vote in the proper way. I will not say which way that is as I am supposed to be neutral.

Fine Gael is taking a very strong "Yes" stance on this vote as we are very pro-Europe and members of the EPP group in the European Parliament. I know the important role played by the ICA in informing people of what is happening on a daily basis. I am sure it will do the same for this treaty.

Sometimes organisations such as the ICA or USI, farming organisations or other groups which appear before the committee from time to time have a more important role to play in such a process than we. People sometimes get disillusioned with politicians. The groups present have a very important role to play in informing people of the facts. I apologise for being late to the meeting.

I apologise to the Chairman and all here for my late arrival in deputising, to some degree, for our regular attendee, Ms Mary Lou McDonald, MEP. Unfortunately she is unwell at the moment so the committee will have to put up with me. Everybody who has spoken on this side of the House so far has spoken in favour of the Lisbon treaty. I am from Sinn Féin and we take a different perspective. I believe we are the only Oireachtas party which is opposing the treaty. I have obtained the submissions from the witnesses today, which I will read carefully. I apologise again for missing the presentations.

A number of issues cause me concern. First, the Commission is unelected and is appointed by Governments. Commissioners, once they are appointed, are completely unaccountable to anybody. That needs reform of some kind and Commissioners must be brought into line with normal accountability procedures.

Passerelle clauses in Article 48 of the treaty mean that this could well be the last EU referendum necessary in this State. We know that Governments in other EU states have side stepped any vote on this treaty. The proposed EU constitution fell apart when the French and Dutch rejected it. That could also be the case here because we are the only EU state holding a referendum but it may not be necessary, under Article 48, to hold referendums in future. Therefore, if one is in favour of the Lisbon treaty, one is giving the EU chiefs a free run at whatever might happen in the future.

I am also concerned about qualified majority voting, which renders Ireland equivalent with continental European cities such as Berlin and with a number of British cities with populations of approximately 4 million to 5 million. The integrity of our State is significantly diminished under this treaty. An emphasis is being placed on the size of populations. That is a significant loss for this State.

The treaty also causes me concern because of the significant favouritism it displays towards nuclear power and the nuclear industry, particularly because I come from the north east of Ireland and am based in County Louth. With the Sellafield plant spewing out its poisonous waste continually, it is no wonder my region has the highest rates of cancer on the entire island. Cancer rates are consistently between 12% and 13% above the national average. I do not want to see this State developing nuclear power; nor do I want to see the British further developing their nuclear industry. Unfortunately, it appears that Great Britain is heading in that direction.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights was referred to by a number of speakers. However, those rights are in existence already and this treaty is not adding significantly to them. The charter is fairly well bedded down.

It is good that the witnesses have attended to discuss the issues with my colleagues, even though I have a different view to my colleagues. I am delighted to have the opportunity to have this conversation with the witnesses. I am grateful to them for attending and apologise for missing the presentations earlier. I have no doubt we will be in touch again in the future.

Thank you, Chairman. I must also offer my apologies for being late. Unfortunately, I was attending a meeting of the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which started at 11.30 a.m. I have just come across the corridor from that meeting, during which there was not even a break for lunch. Clearly, a lot of work is being done in these Chambers on Europe and on scrutinising what the European Union is doing at present.

I wish to address some points made by Deputy Morgan. I am a member of the Labour Party, which is strongly supporting this treaty. We believe it reflects many of the values of the Labour Party and those espoused by our own Constitution. The Commission is the executive of the European Union. What is proposed is that member states will still refer a Commissioner but instead of doing it right across the board, involving all 27 states, it will be done by two thirds of the states. This means that every ten years, Ireland will not have a Commissioner for the following five years. We must not forget the fact that we only had one Commissioner, whereas the larger states had two, including Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany. What is proposed now is that all of the larger states will have only one Commissioner, with exactly the same rotation mechanism as we have. This then is an enhancement, rather than a reduction.

Deputy Morgan's remark about the Passerelle clauses in the last treaty is ridiculous. The Lisbon treaty clearly states that each forthcoming amendment to the treaties will be in accordance with the constitutional regime of each member state. Ireland will continue to amend any development in Europe in terms of its own Constitution. This is not a self-amending treaty, nor is it going to be the last one.

Regarding QMV, qualified majority voting, Deputy Morgan mentioned the 55% — he did not give the figure — but that is what it is, 55% of the population. QMV is a combination, a two-way ticket. In a vote, the population majority must be 55% but there must also be a state majority of 65%. It is finely balanced and that will allow for co-decision making and qualified majority voting. It is very difficult, with a large number of countries, when one of those 27 countries simply imposes a veto. It is much better to get as close as possible to consensus. We still retain the veto, of course, in relation to taxation and neutrality.

Concerning what was said about the EURATOM Treaty, there is nothing about atomic power in this treaty. The EURATOM Treaty has been there from the beginning, 1957.

With regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Deputy Morgan says the rights are there already. They are, as a declaration. If we ratify this treaty they will be legally binding and will have far more clout than they have at present.

I have seen the Irish Countrywomen's Association in action at the National Forum on Europe and its contribution there on a regular basis is excellent. My mother was an ICA member all her life and was very proud of it. It is a fantastic organisation. It has a major role to play in Irish life by informing its members about the issues in this treaty. I am sure that will take place.

With respect to USI, the European Union has, in the past, provided an enormous amount of funding to education and training, especially to the technological side. Regional colleges and institutes of technology have been developed purely on the basis of European Union funding. Without this such development would not have happened, nor would we have the high-tech expertise we have at present.

There are great idealistic issues and new challenges in Europe, such as climate change and eradication of global poverty. I have no doubt that these are issues which the youth of Ireland would espouse. An interesting point that nobody has mentioned so far is that after the Second World War the United States set up a Peace Corps to work abroad. The Lisbon treaty proposes that there will be a youth Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps. That is a mouthful, but humanitarian aid is now to be put on a legal basis so there cannot be lip-service to it. In the Lisbon treaty such aid will be on a legal basis, and young people in the 27 states will be encouraged to go abroad and work in the youth Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps. It is an excellent idea and an idealistic one.

In the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is a fabulous statement, and re-statement, of values in the treaty, workers' rights and young people's rights are very strong.

That covers a fairly wide spectrum. Between them, the USI and the ICA offer a link into virtually every household in the country. It is a very interesting group. Both organisations are opinion formers and activists, each in its respective way. They would play an important role in any referendum that affected the future of this country and of Europe.

A couple of points were made on the petitions system and questions were asked as to how the system would operate. That has not yet been finalised. A system already exists in the Parliament but this relates to the Commission and there are strengths and weaknesses in the proposals. A group might, for example, be able to hijack a petition made elsewhere in Europe but that will be ironed out and the procedure will be refined in time. I do not think it is intended that any one group would be able to hijack a petition in that way. A petition will be heard by the Commission and there will be a response. That is fair, democratic and just.

Deputy Morgan suggested this will be the last time we have a referendum but that is not true. No article exists anywhere in the treaty to that effect and it remains a matter for the member states of the European Union to decide on what will be required in that regard. In the final instance it will be for individual member states and each will ultimately determine whether its constitution requires a referendum. In some countries they do not hold referenda, for a number of reasons I do not propose to go into now.

We took part in a radio discussion the other night about qualified majority voting. I am not nearly as worried about that issue as I was a few years ago. There is a requirement that 55% of members voting be represented and for 65% of the entire population of the European Union to be represented in arriving at a decision. That is the ultimate way of ensuring the interests of the broadest possible spectrum of people in the European Union are reflected in decisions that are taken. It would be very unwise of the European institutions to proceed in any other fashion.

Some members asked about neutrality and we readily understand their concern. However, there is nothing in the treaty that impinges in any way on neutrality and, by way of confirmation, the wording of the referendum will cover any concerns Irish people have on the matter. The question arises as to why a particular reference needs to be made. Why is such a reference not made in respect of every article in the treaty? It is because to do such a thing would simply not be practical. This is an issue about which people in this country have expressed concerns in the past and I assume the Government decided to eliminate the need for further debate on the area. It is now generally accepted that neutrality is not affected.

My last point relates to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I was a member of the convention that drew up the charter so I am sensitive to the issue and a chill comes over me when the matter is raised. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was previously aspirational — it would be a nice thing to have a degree of unanimity across the European Union. Now it is justiciable and will be regarded as part and parcel of the rights and entitlements of all the people throughout the European Union, and that it is a good thing. That is what it was intended to be from the beginning so there has been no change. The intention was to produce a charter that could not be seen to be harmful or detrimental to the rights or entitlements of anybody. It was thought it would be more beneficial if it became legally enforceable.

USI delegates made reference to the failure of the Oireachtas but I do not think the Oireachtas has ever failed on European matters. The machinery and procedures were not in place to deal with European issues in as much detail as we now can. As has been said, today and the other night, we have two committees, the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and this committee, the Joint Committee on European Affairs, each of which deals with European issues. The Minister meets us and addresses the joint committee before going to Council. The Joint Committee on European Scrutiny does something similar, but in the first instance it scrutinises all the proposals from the European institutions, which then follow a circuit and come to this committee. We meet the Minister. There is provision for an issue that may not be acceptable in a member state to go through a procedure where that proposal may be reversed and rejected, as needs be. There is nothing compelling or restrictive about the treaty.

The loss of a Commissioner has been mentioned. I have dealt with this on a number of occasions. In recent years countries that nominate two Commissioners, for example the UK, Italy, France and Spain, refer to them as "our Commissioners". That is not what was intended. The Commission is supposed to represent all countries equally at all times. What is proposed, while it does bring about the sharing of the commissionership, places greater responsibility on the member states to recognise the fundamental role the Commission was supposed to play, which is to drive the institutions of the European Union and to represent equally all countries in the Union, without exception. That is what the proposal is intended to do and I hope it will do so.

As members have said, USI and the ICA have a significant role to play. I would not minimise the function and role of USI and ICA because between them they reach into every household and every community in the country.

Do the delegates wish to make a closing statement?

I would like to answer a number of questions. I thank the Chairman and members for extending an invitation to come before the joint committee and for their welcome. What USI tries to achieve is to be a party to and be included as a main stakeholder in the process of consultation. We thank all the Members of the Oireachtas for their support. We had to go out on the street and make noise to make sure our views were included on the Student Support Bill.

When it comes to the date of the vote, I will be out on the street between the fallen mountains and the moving sky trying to get my members to vote. The Minister for Education and Science addressed our council before the general election and we raised the specific issue that students will not go out to vote during the exams. I am raising this issue again. This is not a call by the USI to encourage our members not to vote. Of course we will encourage them to do so. Members will agree that a sense of apathy on voting has increased in the past number of years. To try to address this issue, USI is asking the joint committee to help us in campaigning for elections to take place at a suitable time. No student will come out to vote on a Thursday if he or she has an examination on Friday morning. We had asked for polling stations to be set up between colleges but we were given reasons as to why it was not possible. We asked for weekend voting, to facilitate members to go home on a Friday evening and to take the time to go to a polling station. Again millions of reasons were given as to why it would not work. If the ballot is to be held on a Friday, for the sake of many stakeholders in society let us have it on a Friday and a Saturday, two days of voting to ensure that all the people who are working during the week are covered.

I was asked about the process of the debate on the issue in the congress. Some members have been involved with USI before. Every year, congress votes on motions on USI policy. Each college submits motions depending on their needs and congress votes on them. As soon as a decision is taken, the president of USI will have no choice but to implement it. At present, no motion on the treaty has been tabled but I have a strong feeling an emergency motion will be put to congress as it is such an important issue for students.

In my opinion, the treaty will affect students during the coming years. If one is at retirement age, the treaty will not affect one in business, but students will be affected in the future. We will have a briefing session with the EC as an impartial body to explain the treaty in more detail to our members. We have invited two speakers from the "Yes" and "No" sides of the debate to address congress on the afternoon of Wednesday, 26 March. Deputy Quinn will address the congress on the "Yes" side. We have also requested a speaker from the Government and two speakers from the "No" side. The chairman of the European Students Union will be a member of the panel. He will not take sides but will address the students on how the treaty will affect students in member states.

Deputy Dooley raised the matter of free education. I agree it is not mentioned in the treaty. In fact, there is little mention of education in the treaty. When I travel throughout Europe and meet colleagues from other student unions, I realise Ireland is one of the few countries where fees are not paid. Most of our colleagues deal with this as a problem. This is a political decision and I am concerned as to how the Irish Minister for Education and Science will react in front of other Ministers when it comes to maintaining free education here and promoting it in other member states as we believe it is a fundamental right.

With regard to how we would communicate a policy decision on a "Yes" or "No" vote to students, regardless of what decision congress comes to I would like to see local debates within colleges on this issue. Such debate informs students. This is an important issue and we would like to see students having their own opinions and agendas rather than take the approach of a political party or USI. This approach does not help and would damage the vote on the treaty.

We took part in a radio programme recently and people texted in to state they will not vote in favour of the treaty because they are unhappy with the Government and the Taoiseach. This has nothing to do with the treaty. It needs to be considered as an issue and discussed. People, including our members, need to be informed on it.

USI has confirmed that the safeguards with regard to population and one vote per country will be protected. However, within USI an argument is taking place with regard to what way is better. I cannot comment on this. We have a similar structure within our congress and national council. Once a year, our congress invites delegations depending on college populations. At our council meetings, each president of a college student union has one vote and the president from Tralee IT has voting equality with the president from UCD. We have always debated whether the system works. In our experience it is one form of democracy and we will continue until another solution is on the table.

I thank the committee for this opportunity. I will provide it with more comprehensive feedback in written form after congress.

On behalf of my organisation, I thank the joint committee for the invitation to attend. We will go back, as we have done in the past, to arrange meetings and make our members available. We will take up the offer of various members to speak to our members. It is our duty to inform our members and we will encourage them to vote.

I thank both groups for attending. They have a useful and important role to play. They are doing so, despite the fact that they have downplayed their own importance. Their views will be borne in mind and will feature in the final analysis. Committee members will attend third level institutions in Dundalk, Athlone, Limerick, Cork, Galway and Dublin — at DCU — for public meetings which members of the public will be welcome to attend. We hope to generate an informative and beneficial debate which will ultimately bring the largest number out to vote. There is nothing like a democratic decision which carries more weight when there is a large turnout.