We have now some matters to decide more or less straightaway. The first question is whether our proceedings should be reported verbatim in the same way as the House itself is reported.
Reporting of Committee.
Chairman
I think the report should be verbatim because the big crib everywhere is that European affairs are not either discussed or reported sufficiently, even in the Oireachtas. A problem may arise when we are dealing with documents which are in draft form. I do not know how we could resolve it. There is a thin line there. Sometimes we could have documents before us for discussion, documents more or less regarded as not for publication. It would be very useful to the Members of the European Parliament to discuss such documents in this committee. It would give the Irish delegates an opportunity of having the advice and counsel of their colleagues as to which line would be best in our particular circumstances.
Chairman
There are two separate issues involved here: one is the verbatim reporting of our discussions and the other is whether the Press should be admitted to our proceedings. I am dealing with the first one first, namely, whether we should have the Reporting Staff reporting everything we say in the same way as the Dáil and Seanad are reported.
The question is whether it should be contemporaneous reporting or verbatim reporting for the record to be published.
I would like a verbatim report because I could look up the record and see what my colleagues had to say on any particular subject.
I would be in favour of a verbatim report like that of the Dáil and Seanad, but I would be against having the Press present.
Chairman
They are two separate issues.
I agree they are.
I do not think the question of the Press arises. I would hope this committee would be a " watchdog " committee, as envisaged, and that it would be the medium through which the members of the European Parliament, who are away for considerable periods each month and cut away almost from Irish affairs, could be briefed and helped in order, so to speak, to get the best of both worlds, though I do not know quite what that is.
I would be against a verbatim report. The obvious comparison would be the Public Accounts Committee. As I understand the proceedings, when they are giving evidence, they are quoted verbatim, and that is highly desirable; on the other hand, when they start discussing their own report, details of this paragraph and that paragraph, all we see is " Paragraphs 32 and 33 agreed ", and so on. There is no such thing as a verbatim report. It seems to me our proceedings would be much more akin to that aspect of the PAC's activities. We will be going through documents, and so on. I cannot see very much scope for or advantage in having a verbatim report. A verbatim report lends a formality which could cause problems—problems can be solved, I know—because when either House is or both Houses are sitting that would be precisely the time at which it would be most difficult to get reporters, but that would be precisely the time most convenient for our meetings and the difficulty in getting reporters would hold up our business and cause unnecessary complications. I do not see any real advantage to be gained from it.
I would support Senator Yeats on that. The advantage of a verbatim report would be very hard to see. If we broke into subcommittees they would have to be reported verbatim. That would be the first problem. Secondly, a verbatim report lends less flexibility to discussion. One of the main functions of this committee, as I see it, would be that we would be able to report rapidly to both Houses on domestic and other matters, regulations, directives, and so on, coming from the Community, as to whether these are or are not satisfactory. If our discussions were rather formal and slow, rather than focussed on documents and reports, it might be very useful to have a verbatim report, but not if we have to come to conclusions rapidly. Another important point is that we hope to have the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other Ministers and, hopefully, experts coming before the committee and they would be franker and more flexible if there is not a verbatim record. The arguments for a verbatim record have not really been put forward and I cannot see what they are.
I am prepared to put them forward against Senator Robinson. Before I do so, I should like to welcome the appointment of Deputy Haughey as Chairman of the committee. I dissent from Senator Yeats in this matter of reporting. It is very easy to be flexible and constructive in a status of total anonymity. In such circumstances the committee perishes into Limbo, as have other committees of the House. I see no virtue in that. It would be much better if this committee were given status. It is a brand new committee. People have to be educated to the fact that something important is happening whenever we meet. They will not be so educated if we just sit around and lightly exchange meaningless words. Someone once said it would be a far, far better thing if we were to expose our discussions to the maximum degree of publicity. I draw the line at Press representation for the moment but I certainly think there should be a verbatim report and the utilisation of every access to the media to make people realise this committee is not just another committee of the Dáil designed to process predigested legislation. If this committee means business—I do not know whether it does or not; I certainly hope it does—its decisions should be given the maximum publicity possible.
I have listened to the various arguments so far and, regretfully, I have come to the conclusion that we would be better without verbatim reports. We will have to do a great deal of examination of documents, legislation and policies and various facts will emerge as a result of our discussions. Many of us may find ourselves in the position of having to change our minds in the light of the examination made and the information placed before us and we would, therefore, be better without a verbatim report. With a verbatim report we might be inclined to take up attitudes and be loath to relinquish them. On balance, I think we would do better without a verbatim report.
Senator Ryan
I fully agree with the arguments so far as they go, about functioning in a more flexible and easier way without a verbatim report. Nevertheless, you have to look at this against the background of the European Economic Community. Decisions are being made in Brussels by the Commission, by all kinds of people, people over whom this country feels it has no control. Not only that, but the general feeling is people do not know what is going on that is affecting them. That criticism was voiced in both Houses. It was certainly voiced in the Seanad. It was agreed that this committee would take from those Members who are not members of this committee their power to influence regulations, directives and so on, and the way in which these were to be put into operation. For that reason, in view of this background criticism of the way in which the EEC generally has interfered with the power over and the control of information available to Members of the Oireachtas and the public, I think it is very important that everything this committee says and does should be available. All information as to what goes on in the committee should be available so that anyone concerned will be able to find out what the committee are doing and keep himself informed of arguments and decisions one way or the other. Consequently, although I agree that the committee may not, perhaps, operate in such a flexible way, or have such an easy atmosphere, nevertheless, for the reasons I have mentioned, I would be inclined to favour having a verbatim report of the proceedings.
I, too, am inclined to the view that we should have a verbatim report of the deliberations of the committee. As the Chairman said, this is a new committee and we need not, therefore, be concerned about precedents. It would be foolish to fall into the trap of adopting the precedents of the Public Accounts Committee or, indeed, of any other committee of the House. If you look outside the Oireachtas, to the general public and their attitude to certain institutions of the State, you will find that the greatest criticism is in relation to this very topic. There are certain areas of activity, especially in relation to semi-State bodies, where there is very little information available or the information that should be available is inaccessible. It seems to me that we are now moving towards a state where there will be more openness in regard to such institutions. This committee can set a precedent in this area. I have an open mind. I realise the pitfalls Senator Robinson has described but I believe that, if the committee is reported, it will be a more vital committee. Basically, because of interest of the general public, and the concern felt about keeping the public interested, in what is happening in the EEC, it is in the national interest that we should adopt this format. We can reserve certain options. Whilst the normal format might be the verbatim report, in situations in which we were interviewing people or discussing certain matters which should not be available to the general public, we should have the option to sit in camera.
Surely we can reserve that right.
My instinctive reaction is that we will have a great deal of tedious and complex work to do. People will want to keep their options open right down the line to the final decision. For a trial period of 12 months, when the committee meets as a whole, it should be reported. I would not regard sub-committees of the committee in quite the same light. They need not be reported verbatim. I would sound a note of warning here. Unless there is a substantial facility made available to the reporting staff I do not know how, in God's name, we could get such a very large committee like this reported by the existing small staff. One of the things we will have to do is make it absolutely clear to the Ceann Comhairle and the Department of Finance that substantial additional facilities, staff-wise/reporting-wise, will have to be made available. If that is not done we will once again have the chaotic position that arose with the PAC inquiry in the early months of 1971 when the committee was virtually dependent on people, with totally inadequate facilities, working excessive hours under great pressure. My feeling is that, initially at any rate, for a period of 12 months, the proceedings of full meetings of the whole committee should be reported. Whether our meetings should be open to the Press is, as the Chairman said, a separate issue.
I am in favour of verbatim reporting. All our proceedings should be open to public scrutiny. The committee has been described as a " watchdog" committee and, more than that, in discussing the setting up of the committee Senators said it represented a significant departure directed towards the committee system and that is why I think we should give it as much strength as possible. I would be in favour of the public being made aware of all our proceedings. The disadvantage in verbatim reporting is that, without it, we might work faster perhaps in processing documents, but I do not see processing documents as a major function of the committee. The major function will be safeguarding the national interest and we can best safeguard or defend our Community interests if our proceedings are, as I say, subject to public scrutiny.
Chairman
It is possible that many documents coming before us might have commercial implications and could find their way into the courts possibly. From that point of view it might be as well to have a verbatim record in case the courts might want it as evidence.
Would I be right in thinking that the consensus view is to have verbatim reports similar to the Dáil and Seanad debates published? Very often the report of the PAC is not published for months, whereas the Dáil and Seanad debates are published the following week. If we are going to inform our colleagues in both Houses and the public it is only right that the report should be available a few days after the meeting.
Would what we say here be privileged in the same way as what we say in the Dáil and Seanad is privileged? Most of what is said in the Dáil is published verbatim. I think it would be better to have a verbatim report.
Chairman
The same privilege would apply to what is said here.
Absolute privilege.
Chairman
I take it the general view is verbatim reporting of our proceedings, with the option to reserve to ourselves the right to go into private session.
Might I suggest " subject to review" in, say, 12 months time?