We now move to the next item on the agenda, namely, the election of the Vice Chairman. Standing Order 90(2) provides that as soon as may be after the election of a Chairman, every committee shall elect one of its members to be Vice Chairman. I now call for nominations for the position of Vice Chairman.
Election of Vice Chairman.
I propose Deputy Martin Mansergh for the position of Vice Chairman.
Are there any further nominations?
Deputy Mansergh is not ready to join us yet.
As there are no other nominations, I declare Deputy Mansergh elected to the position of Vice Chairman and I look forward to working with him. I congratulate the Deputy on his election and I wish him well.
I propose that we go into private session for the remainder of the meeting. Is that agreed?
The precedent is that this committee does not have private sessions and I am of the view that it should be maintained. We have never had private sessions because we never felt they were appropriate. Unless there is some matter in respect of which confidentiality is required, we should remain in public session.
The private session will deal with housekeeping issues and does not relate to public business. The need to deal with such issues will arise from time to time.
The precedent in this committee, which the Chairman proposes to change, is that all our business is conducted in public. We should maintain that precedent because, while it may have been an initiative of the last Chairman, it worked very well for us and it would be a mistake not to continue with it. All our business, whether it concerned housekeeping or anything else, was conducted in public.
I support the Chairman. We should hold private sessions, for which a precedent has been established in other committees. Occasions arose in the past when members were at risk of being compromised because confidential issues had to be discussed. I concur with the Chairman that we should revert to our earlier practice. The previous Chairman had a thing about private sessions but we have a new Chairman and a new committee.
I support my colleague, Deputy Bruton. Public sessions clearly worked in the past and I do not see any reason we should not continue the practice. I would like our work to be open and transparent, so I support Deputy Bruton's proposal.
I support the Chairman. Everybody wants to be open and transparent but to be effective, private sessions are sometimes needed.
No one has suggested the last committee was ineffective. The Chairman was a member of that committee and the only time we entered private session was when a civil servant advising a Minister was allowed to speak in private because the tradition has been that the Minister rather than the civil servant reports on legislation to members. We only went into private session when civil servants wished to give explanations that Ministers did not feel equipped to offer. We should continue that practice.
While I rarely agree with Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, I cannot remember any example of someone being compromised by the tradition we followed in the past. If a member felt he or she would be compromised by being in public session, we could accommodate him or her on a one-off basis. We have been elected by the public, so we should conduct our business publicly.
I assure Deputy Bruton there is no intention of discussing any matters other than housekeeping ones. It has nothing to do with the work programme. There is no question of preventing members from speaking on all matters in public. The practice of the last committee will be maintained, other than in respect of civil servants who are not in a position to speak in public session.
Is the Chairman withdrawing his proposal?
No, I am not. We should have the opportunity to deal with housekeeping matters in certain circumstances. I would prefer we do that today.
I do not agree. I propose that we remain in public session, as we have always done.
I support the proposal.
I support the Chairman's proposal. He has given a great deal of thought to the issue and has taken advice on it. Having been a committee chairman in a previous Dáil, I am aware that it is occasionally necessary to enter private session for housekeeping matters.
What sort of housekeeping matters do we need to discuss in private? I do not understand why it is necessary. Are secrets being held back from the public?
All Oireachtas committees have the facility to deal with matters in private. I am not introducing a different practice. I am suggesting that we follow the precedents set by other committees.
I propose that we follow the precedent established by this committee, which has served us well. This is an important committee and the precedent we have observed will hopefully inform other committees.
We should leave the matter to the discretion of the Chairman because he will have first-hand knowledge of any business that arises for the committee. The fairest way to resolve the issue is to leave it to his discretion.
This is my third term on this committee. There were times when we should have had private sessions. Let us be straight about it. We had nods and winks here when we should have discussed things in a confidential way. The Chairman is right and I fully support his position on this. I do not wish to disagree with my colleague, Deputy Richard Bruton, who is a good friend of mine in the private rather than in the public sector. Deputy Bruton is coming at this from a political perspective but we must be practical also.
Deputy Bruton and others have agreed we must conduct our business in private session when it is necessary to call on officials from the Civil Service to comment on matters. I am simply stating the committee should have the opportunity to discuss housekeeping matters in private session as well, nothing more.
Will the Chairman define "housekeeping matters"?
There are always issues that arise in respect of housekeeping.
I have put a proposal before the committee. There is no amendment to it. My proposal is that we continue the practice of the previous committee. An amendment has not been suggested. If necessary, the Chairman should put the proposal to a vote and let it be decided democratically.
Is there any amendment to the proposal?
I agree with Deputy O'Keeffe and I propose that the matter be left to the discretion of the Chairman.
Deputy Richard Bruton has proposed that we continue the practice of the previous committee and Deputy Chris Andrews has put forward a proposal to the effect that the matter be left to the discretion of the Chairman. Is Deputy Andrews's proposal agreed? Agreed. The joint committee will now go into private session
Is the Chairman exercising his discretion? If so, what grounds is he using in exercising that discretion to go into private session?
The Deputy will note the matters being discussed by way of housekeeping are limited.
Do they need to be discussed in private session?
A decision has been made.
It has been agreed that the Chairman may use his discretion. I would like to hear why the Chairman is using his discretion in this instance.
Why is it necessary to go into private session?
There are many more meetings at which this matter could be discussed.
This is an important principle. The previous committee conducted its business in a particular way and the Government has decided to change the tradition. This is a bad start for the committee. If the Chairman is exercising his discretion, which he now has the authority to do on advice from the committee--
I am implementing a decision of the committee at this stage.
- - will he inform us of the reason he is proposing the committee go into private session?
The committee has agreed to go into private session.
No, the committee has decided that the Chairman may exercise his discretion. As a member of the committee, I want to know why he is exercising that discretion to discuss the following matters in private.
The joint committee will now go into private session.
I will explain as I go along.
We should move on to No. 3.
We need to know why the committee is going into private session.
The committee is in private session.
The joint committee went into private session at 11.35 a.m. and adjourned at 11.45 a.m. sine die.