May I begin by referring to the informal discussion we had a few minutes ago? We were talking of the considerable criticism there has been in the Press recently of the Committee. One of the problems at this meeting is that if we are talking about a programme of work we will also be referring to recent criticisms and the problems we are facing individually and collectively. There is a weakness in that if we are discussing this matter in private we will not have the opportunity at this meeting to refute or to explain in any sense the criticisms there have been of the Committee so it is likely that at the next meeting of the Committee we will need the opportunity to refer to those matters. Therefore, there is bound to be a certain amount of repetition.
Consideration of Work Programme for Joint Committee.
I thought we were to talk about the approach of this Committee to its work and the devising of a work programme. That will enable us to refute any wrong criticisms of the Committee, and to do so publicly.
Of course, we can refute criticisms but since this meeting is in private——
No, this is a public meeting of the Committee.
Is this a public meeting?
It was my intention that we should go into private session but there I am in the hands of the Committee.
I thought we had decided to have a public meeting.
Was this called as a private meeting?
Can we get on with the work and forget about the niceties?
This is not a question of the niceties——
The Deputy himself said it was important that we should discuss this in public because of the public interest involved.
That is precisely what I am saying. But the Chairman arranged for this particular meeting to be held in private. Is that not right?
That was my intention.
Surely it is for the Committee to decide whether we sit in public or in private.
I propose that we now go into private session.
I second that.
I think it should be public.
This meeting?
This meeting. Because I think otherwise it will be duplicatory in the sense that we will have to have another meeting in public and go over much the same ground.
But surely we might just make a statement?
Why do we have to go over the same ground in public?
For this reason. There has been recently substantial criticism in the public Press of this Committee and of the personnel of this Committee. The discussion which is proposed for today is about a programme of work for the current year and contained within that would obviously be discussion about the criticism and possibly refuting of aspects of it or explanations of it. If this meeting is held in private it will not give the opportunity to refute or offer explanations for what has been happening.
Therefore, we should have it in public.
Precisely. If we have the meeting in private today there will be a great deal of duplication at the next meeting which presumably will be in public and we will cover the same ground.
I do not think that necessarily follows. I suggest that a reasonably intelligent way to proceed would be to go into private session now to discuss our problems and our difficulties, see how we can overcome them and discuss a work programme at our next public session. In fact, as a matter of routine all our sessions from then on, except in exceptional circumstances, would be public. At our next public session we could announce our work load.
With respect, Chairman, if our meetings have been in public why should it be an arbitrary decision at the beginning of this meeting to have it in private?
There is no question of an arbitrary decision. I am suggesting that we go into private session now. I discussed this with a number of members and there was general agreement that it would be preferable to have this discussion in private session but there is nothing arbitrary about it; it is entirely a matter for the Committee.
I agree with Deputy Staunton on this point. There has been criticism of this Committee and a certain public disquiet. It was felt that we were not fulfilling our functions. In my view it is unrealistic for us to go into private session to discuss what is a matter of public interest. We have a statutory function and we were established by motion of both Houses of the Oireachtas to fulfil a very important role. We will only increase the public disquiet if we go into private session. Our approach to our work programme and the way we can improve our application to that work is a matter of public interest.
I also agree with Deputy Staunton when he stated that a public session would allow members of this Joint Committee to explain the problems of attendance at the Committee and, through that, come to a reasonable and appropriate work programme. If we go into private session we do not exist for all intents and purposes. Certainly, the members not present today will have no idea of what we have discussed and there would be no record of our discussion. I do not think it would be a very useful exercise to go into private session. In fact, my inclination would be to withdraw because a private session would not be very useful.
In private session we are merely concerned with a matter of procedure. On such a matter we could get a lot more done in a private session. If this is to be a public meeting some members will take advantage to get a lot of things off their chests with the result that we may not get down to our real work, the planning of a programme of work for the next few months. That being so, we would achieve far more by going into private session. The question we have to ask ourselves is, do members wish to have an opportunity to make headlines or do they wish to prepare a work programme?
I am putting the proposal, that we go into private session to prepare a programme of work for the coming year, to the meeting.
Will we go back into public session when we have discussed our programme?
We can deal with that later.
I oppose any private session.
I propose that we do not go into private session.
I do not think it is worth dividing the Committee on this issue. Our Committee has always worked very well. Let us get on with the business. In my view it does not matter a lot whether we discuss this matter in public or in private because the intention is not to cover up in any way; the intention is to give greater freedom of discussion. I support the proposal that we have a private session to permit us to prepare our procedural programme as quickly as possible. We will, at the earliest opportunity, make the entire business public.
As a majority of members are in favour of my proposal, we will now go into private session.
I regret the inferences in Senator Ryan's remarks that some members in public sessions work only for publicity purposes rather than for the betterment of the Committee. I do not accept that that is valid. I also question the inference that a committee such as this cannot achieve anything or get on with the business in a public session as well as they could if they went into Committee. The fact that we are preparing a work programme for the coming year as distinct from considering specific EEC Directives does not take away from the fact that such work is important from the public point of view. What we are to discuss today is just as much the business of the general public as any discussion on EEC Directives or European policy. I feel strongly on this point. Meetings, up to now, have been in public. In my view it was wrong that we were only told at the start of this meeting that it would be held in private.
The Committee went into private session.