I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after Dáil Éireann and substitute the following:
"supports the proposals for Oireachtas reform set out in the recently published Programme for Government and in particular
—the proposal to enable suitable Bills to be dealt with at Committee Stage by a Select Committee;
—the proposal to review after the Christmas recess the possible arrangements whereby short debates on topical matters take place each day;
notes that these proposals will give ample scope for detailed discussions on Committee Stage of Bills and for frequent debates on economic and social policies including examining in detail reports from various bodies such as the NESC and the ESRI and providing Deputies generally with the possibility of voicing their opinions on economic and social policies including the creation of employment."
I would like to thank Deputies Quinn, Higgins and Noonan for wishing me well in my term in the Department of Finance.
I acknowledge the contribution of Deputy Quinn in moving the motion. I accept he has done so in a constructive way and that he is taking a positive attitude to what can be done in this regard. I have been involved for many years in Dáil reform. When Deputy Bruton was Leader of the House during the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition and I was Whip for Fianna Fáil we worked for 18 months, in 1983-84, to see what committees could be set up and how the workings of the House could be improved. Eight years later we look back and realise that some of those committees were a success but many of them did not live up to the expectations or the aspirations we outlined at the time. Certainly the work programmes that were laid out were not completed and, for that reason, I am concerned as to the value of such committees. However, I do not rule them out.
In the Programme for Government I considered ways in which we could reform the workings of this House. I accept that such reform is necessary. Deputy Quinn read into the record many of the aspects of that programme. Some points in it were referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, of which I was honoured to be a member for many years, and these issues will be teased out in that committee. I argued eight years ago when I was Government Whip and a member of that committee, as did Deputy Quinn when he was Whip of his party and later when he was Minister, and also Deputy Seán Barrett, that it was best to deal with this matter not at committee level but in the House. It was suggested that committees be set up to deal with Committee Stage of Bills, and, again, that point is reflected in the Programme for Government.
Another point raised is that we should be entitled to freer, short term debates in the House on major issues that affect us. The proposals in the Programme for Government will allow the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to decide on how best that can be done and whether we can make progress in this regard. If useful committees are to be set up we should consider the points in the Programme for Government and take them up in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. In that way these issues can be dealt with and progress can be made.
The motion put before me yesterday evening for examination and response and put before the House by the Deputies opposite has underlying it a basic contention with which I do not disagree, that is the idea that valuable contributions to the formulation of public policy in vital areas of national life can and must be made by Members of the Oireachtas. I feel strongly, as I think do all my colleagues in Government, that elected representatives in their daily work can tap a wider range of experience and opinion than any other group in the State and that evaluating, distilling and articulating that volume of opinion must have a recognised place in our political and parliamentary system. Deputy Quinn made that point although he feels that Government Ministers, because of their heavy workload — which is the case regardless of who is in power — are remote from the decisions of ordinary people, but I do not accept that.
Despite my feelings on this point, I disagree with the motion because the form in which it is put forward underrates the value and effectiveness of the contribution which is made, and continues to be made, on the floor of this House by Deputies of all parties and the degree to which those contributions influence the operation of Government in all areas of public policy and administration. The motion proposes the creation of an Oireachtas committee with a remit so widely defined as to ensure that no area of national life falls outside its purview. What it seeks to do is set up a body which would oversee not the work of a single Minister or a single coherent area of Government but of our entire political system. We already have such a body, called Dáil Éireann, which carries out that work. What the Labour Party seek to do is to assign to a small body of no fewer than 18 Deputies and Senators a substantial part of the functions which belong to all Members of this House. This is not a measure to enhance the powers of the House, as some speakers pretend; it is a proposal that the House hand over a most fundamental part of its functions to a committee.
Even if this House were predisposed to abdicate its responsibilities in the manner proposed by the motion and agree to the creation of the committee, we are faced with the question of how workable the new machinery could be. How would it mesh with the operation of other committees of this House? It would impinge on many of the committees whose establishment I was involved in some time ago. How would it impinge on the operation of the Government to which this House has entrusted the affairs of the country?
My contention is that the terms of reference of the committee have been so widely drafted that if established on the basis proposed it would regard itself as entitled to trespass on the remit of all the other committees established to look at specific and identified problem areas of public administration.
It is for these reasons that such a committee would be unwieldy and unworkable, that we on this side of the House feel constrained to oppose an amendment to this motion. Our amendment takes account of the desire to increase the involvement of Members of the House in the detailed shaping of legislation, as referred to by Deputy Quinn, and in teasing out in the fullest way possible the implications for the community of the specific details of proposed laws. It also makes provision for the revision of arrangements introduced by this Government to ensure that the views of Deputies on matters of topical concern can be placed on the record promptly. I acknowledge what Deputy Quinn has said, that the proposal goes a considerable way towards solving the problem but does not go all the way.
This Government have shown their commitment to the enhancement of the role of the Oireachtas in the field of legislation and examination of governmental activities in a practical way — the number of topics which can be discussed in the House as a result of the alteration in the Adjournment debate arrangements has been increased and allows Members to deal promptly with matters of topical concern while the institution of broadcasting from the Houses of the Oireachtas has enabled the concern of legislators with the issues of the day to be literally brought home to the constituents. We have also established a new committee to assist Members to reflect public concern with crime and other matters under discussions. Under our new Programme for Government, we have committed ourselves to enhancing the role of the Dáil through a series of specific measures. We have in particular indicated our support for a procedure which will allow suitable Bills to be dealt with on Committee Stage by a selection committee.
While I was in opposition I raised this issue, and I know Members of the Opposition have been calling for it for some time. We are making arrangements to allow urgent topical matters to be deal with. I know Deputy Seán Barrett has raised this issue in the House for many years whenever Dáil reform was discussed.
The first of these arrangements will allow a greater and perhaps more productive involvement by Members of this House in what may seem to be the minutiae of legislation; but, as most of us have cause to realise, the small details of legislation, the manner in which a statutory phrase is deployed, can have significent impact on the lives and activities of those we represent. The sceptics may argue that legislation and concern with economic and social affairs are different elements of the parliamentarians task, but a look at the thrust of legislation which has come before this House in recent years highlights the difficulty of drawing a meaningful distinction between legislation which has a social economic effect or dimension and that which has not. Our concerns as legislators are primarily with domestic policy and with those aspects of European affairs which bear on our industry, agriculture or social affairs. The difficulty of drawing such a distinction is underlined in what I may describe as the preamble to the proposals put before us which refer to these areas — unemployment, housing, health and education. Give a committee this wide ranging remit and what business is there left for the rest of the House.
The second of these proposals is designed to improve existing mechanisms available to this House to discuss matters of topical concern. In making those improvements a consultative process will be involved to which the Members, through their Whips, will be able to contribute and their exprience of the working of the present arrangements for short debates drawn on to devise improvements for the year ahead. I think we are all aware that the existing arrangements were not intended exclusively to enable Members to mount fire brigade exercises on matters affecting their constituencies but to allow topics of wider concern in areas of evolving policy to be discussed.
The range of topics indicated in tonight's motion suggests that the coming review might profitably focus on how best these arrangements should be modified to ensure frequent debates on economic and social policies, including detailed examination of reports from various bodies, such as the NESC and the ESRI, and to provide members of the House with enhanced possibilities for voicing their views on economic and social policies including the creation of employment.
My own belief is that any perceived restriction on a Deputy's scope to contribute to the public discussion of these topics can be more readily and properly removed by the mechanisms I have outlined to enhance his or her scope to make points on the floor of the House or participating in the detailed scrutiny of legislative proposals than by establishing the "catch all" forum with limited membership envisaged in the motion. This is the positive case for the amendment we are proposing to the motion.
No doubt the proponents of this motion will represent their initiative as indicating their concern for a wide range of socio-economic issues as Deputy Higgins has outlined. I find it hard to credit that the Deputies proposing this motion really believe the committee which they propose could possibly promote advancement in any of the many areas they would encompass. There will be a cross-over into the work of the existing committee, on which Members worked hard and diligently. The committee envisaged lacks any coherence or clarity of purpose. In attempting to consider and make recommendations on the entire spectrum of economic affairs, it will inevitably collapse under the sheer weight of the task. If we are honest we all know about the difficulties in the management of committees.
I negotiated with Deputy Bruton in 1983 and it was agreed that the work of the committees would be reviewed on an ongoing basis but, frankly, that has not been done. We tended to build on the existing committees. However in the Programme for Government we allow for an examination of the committees to see what committees should be retained. In the indepth discussions on 1992 I do not rule out that amendments would be taken but we should not add to the committee list until that review is undertaken. The committee proposed in tonight's motion fails palpably to fulfil these requirements. Instead it is an appalling mish-mash of organisational theory which would not achieve any worthwhile purpose. Certainly the proposed committee would do scant justice to the wide range of weighty matters which it is suggested it should consider.
I would have the gravest doubts about the merits of establishing this or indeed any committee on a statutory basis. This would mark a decisive change from long established practice. As things stand, no Oireachtas committee is so established. Even the long standing Committee on Public Accounts is not statutorily based but is established under Dáil Standing Orders. I do not believe in unnecessary legislation. Oireachtas Joint Committees should be established — and indeed abolished — on an ad hoc basis in response to the evolving perceptions of the Oireachtas on the issues which are currently appropriate for consideration at such a forum. I can see no justification for the creation of unnecessary rigidities by the establishment of any committees on a statutory basis; in any area such as this flexibility is an important requirement.
The functions envisaged for the proposed committee leave me with a decided sense of unease for a whole range of reasons. Let us examine them one by one. The first function is to review economic and social policy from time to time. I cannot see any Oireachtas committee operating satisfactorily with such a wide remit. At any given time there would be such a range of topical current issues which would fall into these categories that the committee would inevitably spread their resources far too thinly to allow for any meaningful review to be undertaken. In my view, Oireachtas committees are most needed to look into areas which the Oireachtas, because of pressure of other work, is precluded from considering in sufficient detail.
I think that most Members of this House would agree that as things stand, the Oireachtas spends a very considerable amount of its time debating matters of economic and social concern. There are regular formal opportunities for such discussion provided by the lengthy debates on the Estimates, the budget, the Finance Bill, the Appropriation Bill, Question Time and Private Members' Business.
Most of the time of this House is spent on issues raised in this motion. We have the opportunity to raise issues of agriculture, housing, health, education and economic and social matters during the debate on Bills, at Question Time, Private Notice Questions and on Adjournment debates. We have indicated in the Programme for Government that we are prepared to consider the reorganisation of the working of this House. Deputy Quinn acknowledges this point.
The second function envisaged for the committee is to examine in detail the reports from various bodies such as the NESC and the ESRI. Anyone who has ever read a report from either the NESC or the ESRI will readily acknowledge that they are consistently well presented and always incorporate, where appropriate, clearly enunciated proposals and recommendations. They do not in my view lend themselves to the type of minute scrutiny by a committee of selected parliamentarians which is envisaged in the motion. These reports frequently deal with a single topic — often one with relevance to the area of responsibility of a single Minister.
Some such reports attract a deal of media attention which often includes elaboration and criticism of their conclusions by experts and commentators in the field concerned. Deputies, and I have some experience of this, may express their views on such reports in several ways: they may pose questions to Ministers on their reaction to such reports at Question Time or in the annual discussions on a departmental Estimate; they may pursue contentious elements, where relevant, through the evidence taking mechanisms of existing committees — be it the Committee on State-sponsored Bodies, the PAC, the Committee on Women's Affairs, the Select Committee on Crime and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges; or if they regard the span of public attention on the topics concerned as limited, they can ventilate their views in the form of motions during Private Members' Time or during the Adjournment debates. Given the range of commenting options open to Deputies, it is doubtful whether any contribution can be made by another committee in this area.
The next proposed function is to deal with legislation on Committee Stage as the Dáil may from time to time decide. What is envisaged here is definitely worth considering, but I am not entirely certain what is intended. Is it envisaged that Committee Stage of all legislation which touches on the entire range of social and economic affairs should be so considered? The Government are sympathetic to the motion that appropriate legislation be referred to a select committee, and I think that I have outlined that. The House may, indeed, as the motion implies, be less inclined to utilise the mechanisms available to it to have specific legislation considered by committees rather than the whole House. I think that all of us will admit that Members are perfectly happy to make worthwhile contributions on the scope and thrust of certain legislation generally but find that they have less enthusiasm for teasing out the possibilities inherent in the phrases in a section or subsection whereby the draftsman gives expression to the intentions of the particular Minister. The use of special committees on legislation has the advantage of removing discussion on those items from the limited time available for discussion on the floor of the House, thus allowing a fuller and more technical discussion on them. It also has the advantage of allowing that particular task to be assigned to Members selected because of their known interest or experience of the problems reflected in the Bill. I think we have done that to great effect with at least two or three Bills in the life of the current Dáil. To my Labour Party colleagues I say that I agree with that proposal wholeheartedly. It is in the Programme for Government and there is no difficulty with it.
What is proposed in paragraph 6 of the motion would, I grant, remove discussion on Committee Stage or in special committees and assign it to a fixed team of members rather than a hand-picked group. We have seen the advantage of a hand-picked group over a fixed committee with two of Deputy Shatter's Bills where that worked very successfully. I put that forward as a system which has worked well and which could perhaps be extended.
The Government's proposals, as I have stated, as set out in the new Programme for Government satisfy any requirement to preserve the time of the House as a whole at least as effectively as the proposals outlined. It is a clear improvement on them in terms of ensuring that the Members dealing with Committee Stage of a particular Bill have a proven interest in it. More important, the Government's proposals ensure that the diverse talents of all Members of the House, whether they be front benchers or backbenchers, are more likely to be drawn on in the course of a session than are the proposals put forward in the unamended motion.
Leaving aside the particular advantage offered by the Government's proposal, the Labour Party's motion contained a procedural change which cannot be made. I just ask the Labour Party to consider it. I presume that it is just a drafting error that has been made, so I shall not argue it out.
The fourth proposed function is to receive submissions from the social partners and other interested groups on matters concerning the creation of employment and wealth and on the rights of workers and unemployed persons. There can be no objection to interest groups seeking to communicate their views to Members of the Oireachtas. Indeed, many such groups already systematically canvass Deputies on topics of interest to them and bring their views to attention through submissions, lobbying and presentations. That is something that happens every day, whether one is in Government or in Opposition. I am doubtful that even advertisements soliciting views on economic and social issues generally would bring to light anything likely to add to the sum of parliamentary knowledge. If we went along with this proposal, what would be the result in terms of the action needed to improve employment or wealth creation? The Oireachtas is the Legislature; the Government, not the Dáil, is charged with carrying legislation and public policy into effect. That is a point we have to remember. To have a practical impact, the committee would have to convey the views they received to the Government.
My time in Government has taught me some realities: first, no group with an idea it wants translated into governmental action misses a chance to communicate it to Ministers or the Government; and, second, no Deputy convinced by a constituent, a group — whether they be a lobby group or an interest group of any kind — or a contact, that he has a solution to some national or local problem fails to find a means of bringing it promptly to ministerial attention either on the floor of the House or through representations, delegations or deputations. As things stand, numerous groups make submissions — both written and oral — to the Government. Every year Government Ministers meet with and consider proposals from a wide range of interest groups. The Government consider that this process represents an important contribution towards the formulation of economic and social policy.
What worthwhile role could an Oireachtas committee play in that matter? Clearly, all that the proposed committee could do would be to bring the matters raised to the attention of the Government, as groups and individual Deputies already do. In essence, what would be involved would be the creation of a new, needless layer of mediation that would serve only to create an artificial barrier between the Government and various interest groups. Deputy Quinn made many good points, but I think that he argues against himself because — as Deputy Noonan would certainly know from his capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce through the years — a number of bodies come to the Government and if a Minister is too busy in other affairs and cannot keep in touch, he or she is at least kept informed by the lobby groups, who have a right to bring their requirements and their arguments before a Government Minister. To leave all of that to a committee would certainly create the barrier about which I think Deputy Quinn has an argument. I know, as every Minister for Finance knows, what is required between now and budget day in early January and of the number of bodies and groups to meet both officials and Government members. That position applies not to one Department but to most Departments of Government.
The fifth proposed function is that the committee would make detailed recommendations from time to time to the Government and the Oireachtas on the creation of employment and wealth and all related matters. The issues of employment creation and the generation of wealth are undeniably of paramount importance and urgency in the context of the country's economic development. I do not deny that many Members of the Oireachtas have valuable contributions to make in that regard. The essence of a successful committee is that the Members, while allowing for personal opinions, should be able to work together to achieve a consensus on the matter under consideration. Issues of employment and wealth creation are at the heart of the ideological divide in this country, as elsewhere. I promise Deputy Higgins to try to deal with some of the issues that he raised. I accept that perhaps he has some arguments on the matter; we have had this argument across the House before on the rising tide and other issues and perhaps some of his arguments over the years have proved to hold some weight. In a different job from my job in the Labour portfolio, in which I did hear some of those arguments, perhaps I should now try to look at those arguments from another point of view. The Deputy has been consistent on what he has said from 1987, so I shall certainly listen to the points that he has made strongly and consistently.