Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 1983

Vol. 101 No. 3

Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities: Motion.

Professor Dooge

I move:

(1) That a Select Committee consisting of 7 members of Seanad Éireann (none of whom shall be a representative in the Assembly of the European Communities) be appointed to be joined with a Select Committee to be appointed by Dáil Éireann to form the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities

(a) to examine

(i) such programmes and guidelines prepared by the Commission of the European Communities as a basis for possible legislative action and such drafts of regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions of the Council of Ministers proposed by the Commission,

(ii) such acts of the institutions of those Communities,

(iii) such regulations under the European Communities Act, 1972 (No. 27 of 1972), and

(iv) such other instruments made under statute and necessitated by the obligations of membership of those Communities

as the Joint Committee may select and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas; and

(b) to examine the question of dual membership of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann and the European Assembly and to consider the relations between the Irish representatives in the European Assembly and Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas;

(2) That in the absence from a particular meeting of the Joint Committee of a member who is a member of Seanad Éireann, another member of Seanad Éireann may, with the authority of the absent member, take part in the proceedings and vote in his stead, and that members of Seanad Éireann, not being members of the Joint Committee, may attend meetings and take part in the proceedings without having a right to vote;

(3) That members of Seanad Éireann who are representatives in the Assembly of the European Communities be notified of meetings and be allowed to attend and take part in proceedings without having a right to vote;

(4) That the Joint Committee shall, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, have power to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purpose of particular inquiries.

(5) That the Joint Committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman who shall have only one vote;

(6) That all questions in the Joint Committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative;

(7) That every report which the Joint Committee proposes to make shall, on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith, whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit; and

(8) That five members of the Joint Committee shall form a quorum of whom at least one shall be a member of Dáil Éireann and at least one shall be a member of Seanad Éireann.

Items Nos. 1 to 7 are concerned with the establishment of Joint Committees and in some cases with the re-establishment of committees already agreed. In others there are important new departures. The first thing I should like to say in regard to this general question relates to the fact that there is no Minister present today. It is customary with regard to matters of this sort for the Leader of the House formally to move the motion and then for a Minister to make a speech outlining what is proposed and for a Minister ultimately to reply to the debate. The view has been taken that the question of the Joint Committees, the question of joint structure as it affects the Seanad, is a matter for the Seanad and, accordingly, with regard to these motions I will be making the proposition to the House; I will reply to the debate and deal with any points raised. The absence of a Minister on these items is not a slight on the Seanad. It is a compliment to the Seanad, recognising that the Seanad itself is best qualified to discuss these matters.

Motion No. 1 is concerned with the standing committee for secondary legislation under the EEC. This, by now, might well be considered a permanent committee, as permanent in its effect as the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or any other of our permanent committees. In this particular instance it has a two-fold mandate, to examine all secondary legislation originating from the European Economic Community and, secondly, to examine the question of the dual mandate. Both of these are important. Senators will note from the terms of the motion that they are being asked to agree to here, that the motion does allow for members who are not formally appointed to the committee by the Seanad to attend as observers. This is a reflection of the fact that Senators may have a particular interest and also of the fact that the proceedings of a committee such as this are a highly educational process. Those who are members of the committee or who attend as observers are thereby in a position to learn a great deal about the working of the EEC and of the effects that decisions made in Brussels and in other centres of Community activity have on us here. I recommend the motion that asks that seven Senators should join with 18 Deputies to form this committee.

Mr. W. Ryan

I welcome the setting up of these committees. Although a number of them have been in existence for a good many years there are a few new committees. Some committees have been changed. The Library Committee and the Restaurant Committee now come under a Joint Services Committee and it is high time that that committee was set up because we must have a great restaurant management here who are able to operate for so long without a committee. I hope that the committees will be a success but from my experience here over the years I have my doubts. We are all very keen on being appointed to the different committees but after one or two meetings it is very hard to get a quorum for most of them. I hope that does not happen in this case. As Senator Robinson said, with both Houses going into recess in the next few weeks, the committees should get down to work right through the month of July and get something done before they go on holidays in August.

Based on my experience of committees that have already been set up I am worried that our party, the main Opposition party, are not getting the representation which we should get. If we go strictly according to numbers, which we have been doing for the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and the Land Committee, we have not the membership that we should have. Most of these committees will consist of seven Senators, two of which will belong to the main Opposition party against five others. I am not saying this is the fault of the Fine Gael or Labour Parties but that is the rule. Unless we get three Senators out of seven, to which we are well entitled, we will be very slow to accept anything on these committees.

Mrs. Robinson

I also welcome the motion to re-establish this Joint Committee on EEC secondary legislation. It is a sobering thought for all of us that the last report issued by the Joint Committee on EEC secondary legislation was dated 13 May 1981. Therefore it is more than two years since the Irish parliamentary watchdog committee on EEC legislation examined and reported to both Houses on EEC draft legislation and draft proposals which affect every aspect of our economic and social life at present.

There have been the unusual circumstances of three general elections in quick succession but they merely highlight a weakness that was there anyway, the difficulty after any general election and reconstitution of the two Houses of ensuring that committees are re-established not within a matter of, at the earliest, six months but rather within a matter of weeks. Without wanting to push this point too far we can look at the comparable situation in the Westminster Parliament where they had a recent general election and yet both Houses are busy re-establishing their main committees already or have already done so, a comparable experience at least of another relatively similar legislative Chamber and its approach to the establishment of committees.

Since the establishment of the first Joint Committee in 1973 there has been an inordinate delay in re-establishing the Joint Committee after each general election. Although I take the point that the Leader of the House, Senator Dooge, was making, that this committee has now become a permanent committee, I would reinforce that point by saying it has not just become a permanent parliamentary committee, it has a statutory function under the European Communities (Amendment) Act, 1973. We must establish it and it should be doing its job of examining and reporting on the implementation here of EEC legislation by Statutory Instrument. We give Irish Ministers very wide powers, much wider powers than they had hitherto to implement and therefore we should also be examining the manner in which they exercise those powers.

The main points that I want to make on the re-establishment of this Joint Committee are on a broader political front. We can ill afford to neglect the decision making and the legislative process in Brussels. If we do not have an active, political Joint Committee on EEC Legislation we are failing to have a really democratic impact on the legislative process because we all know that although the European Parliament is now directly elected and although it has increased its budgetary power it does not have legislative powers or decision making as such. Therefore, the burden is on national parliaments, particularly on a country like Ireland which is very substantially affected by the decisions taken at EEC level. We must be much more conscious of the importance of having a parliamentary input into the activities of the Joint Committee. I hope, as Senator Willie Ryan has said, that this committee, once the motions are through both Houses and the Members have been or are already selected by the groupings to participate, would get under way, have a number of meetings before the end of July and come back in early September in order to catch up on a substantial backlog.

There are hundreds of draft regulations and draft directives, or regulations and directives, which have been passed without any scrutiny which are at least, technically, on the agenda of the Joint Committee. There are, as every Member knows, extremely important decisions or proposals for decision within the European Community context. I do not want to get into those because I would be getting into the substance of the committee's work. They are of vital political interest and the time that has passed without the Joint Committee meeting perhaps undermined its significance to some extent. I recall the debates prior to the establishment of the first Joint Committee. We all felt at that time that it was absolutely vital to have an Irish parliamentary committee scrutinising EEC legislation or otherwise the structures of the Community were, first of all, not fully democratic and, secondly, potentially of considerable danger to us and likely to overlook the special development needs, the particular aspects of the Irish economy and agriculture, which a parliamentary committee is in a very good position to comment and report on.

Turning to the actual terms of reference themselves. I welcome a number of changes that have been made in the terms of reference. In particular, I welcome a new provision referred to by Senator Dooge under paragraph (2) that in the absence from a particular meeting of a member of the Joint Committee that an alternative can be there, to use the new language which was used to some extent in the New Ireland Forum, a person can take the place of an absent member. That new provision for alternate membership is important and should allow fuller participation for Members of this House whether they are formally appointed as members of the committee or by showing an interest can regularly sit in and vote as alternate members.

I also welcome the continuing provision to notify and involve the members of the European Parliament who happen to be Members of this House at any time. It is very important to have that institutional link, particularly as one of the terms of reference of the committee is to look at the dual mandate. In particular I welcome paragraph (4) which is another new provision in the terms of reference:

That the Joint Committee shall, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, have power to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purpose of particular enquiries;

The experience of Members who served on that Committee has been that it is most important that the committee have available to them expertise in the areas being studied. Whether it is a matter of a common transport policy and there is the possibility of engaging an expert to work for the committee and report to them, whether it is a particularly technical legal issue that arises such as the draft directive on product liability, whatever issue it is, the committee must be able to draw on the resource of specialist backup. It is a more flexible and I hope, a more positive provision enabling the committee to select their experts rather than being tied to one full-time expert on everything and to commission the expertise by having the resources to do so.

Since the Leader of the House has taken upon himself the burden of replying to this debate I would like to ask how it is envisaged this will work. Is it envisaged that the Joint Committee will have a sufficient budget to ensure that during the year members of the committee can decide to commission reports and studies and expert work by individuals who have this expertise and can put it at the disposal of the Joint Committee? If every individual decision had to go for the consent of the Minister for the Public Service the time lag might be so substantial between the decision of the committee to examine something and the need to get the consent on every single decision of that kind if expertise was to be commissioned, it might mean the committee could not examine the matter within a relevant time. One of the important political functions of the Joint Committee is to separate some of the technical and less strategic measures and to concentrate on the key political proposals and ensure in that context that their reports are available well in time before the relevant decision of the Council of Ministers or whatever.

I would like the Leader of the House in his reply to explain why the membership has been reduced by a factor of one. Previously the committee had 26 members, I think I am correct in saying 18 Members of the Dáil and eight Members of this House. We have now reduced the number to seven Members of this House, and I bear in mind with considerable sympathy the viewpoint expressed by Senator Ryan. It is important that the main Opposition party be substantially, not just mathematically, represented on a working committee of this House. That has a very important value and I would prefer to see the committee enlarged to allow that very full representation by the Opposition. There may be some virtue in an odd number — 25 instead of 26 — but I just note that the committee membership has been reduced by one.

Finally, I would like to ask the Leader of the House whether it is his intention before the Seanad rises at the end of our parliamentary session this summer to ensure the tabling of the necessary amendment to our Standing Orders so that if the Joint Committee, faced with this very substantial and important back-log of work, reports that certain proposals at Community level should be debated in this House we would resume the position of ensuring that within a set period, eight days after the tabling of a motion noting the report and calling for a debate, the debate itself will take place. Can the proposal to amend our Standing Orders in that regard be tabled, unless this matter is dealt with in a permanent fashion which is just possible?

It is important that we have the capacity which we had in the past to debate on the floor of the House whatever reports members of the Joint Committee are highlighting and seeking a debate on in the Chamber because this reinforces the political role of the Joint Committee. The one qualified criticism I have of the Joint Committee since their establishment is that they have not played a sufficient political role despite the fact that the measures that they have been considering have enormous impact on the economic and social lives of citizens of this country. Therefore, it would be helpful to ensure that we will have a number of opportunities throughout the year to discuss, in this House, the reports of the Joint Committee when adopted and published.

Mr. E. Ryan

I support Senator Robinson on the last point she made, that is the reintroduction of the procedure we have had previously which provided that when a Joint Committee specifically recommended or asked for a debate on a report the House would accept that recommendation and provide time for the report to be debated. One thing that has been commented upon on many occasions about various reports that have been made by Joint Committees is the fact that they were not debated by either House. It will be unhelpful and will demoralise members of Joint Committees if they feel that their good work is never going to have any effect, is never going to be debated by the House. The best way of ensuring that it will be so debated is to have the procedure which we had previously, which provided that the House must debate it within a certain length of time. On the other hand, that procedure should be used with discretion because it would defeat the purpose if every Joint Committee asked for every report to be debated by the House. In that case we would spend most of our time debating reports, some of which might not be very important. My experience was mainly with the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies and we asked on a number of occasions that particular reports be debated because we felt they were of considerable importance. On the other hand, we examined other State-sponsored bodies and found that they were doing their work quite well and we did not feel it necessary for the House to debate the report so we did not make the recommendation. It must be used with discretion, or otherwise its purpose would be defeated. I support the suggestion of Senator Robinson that we should have the same procedure in this House as we had in the past.

Mr. Lanigan

It is not before its time that this committee were set up because it is of vital importance that they get down to the work which is extremely necessary because that is the only opportunity that the national Parliament has to deal with proposed legislation which might come before the European Parliament. One of the problems that we have had over the years because this committee have not been meeting is that legislation has gone through the European Parliament but we have had no input and the members of the European Parliament themselves have only debated the Bills once they were presented to them. In other words, they had no input into the legislation as it was going through the Parliament. It is essential that this committee be set up. I am not too sure how the committee when set up will be able to catch up with the workload that is likely to be put before them. I would hate to be the civil servants or whoever would have to go through the many tons of materials from the European Parliament that must have built up over the last 18 months and try and take from the great bulk of paper the draft legislation that will be of vital importance to Ireland. The suggestion is that the committee be set up and that the work start at the beginning of the new session, but that might be too far in the distance. Once this committee are set up — we hope before the Dáil and Seanad go into recess — they should meet immediately to find out the workload they face. They might have to sit throughout the summer to catch up on the workload so that by the time the new session starts in September or October they will be reasonably up to date and then will at least be starting to deal with legislation which might be forthcoming in the near future in the European Parliament.

I agree with Senator Willie Ryan that the representation of our party as the main party in Opposition has been cut down. I am not too sure why the numbers on the committee have been cut. I can see on a percentage basis technically why our representation has been cut but I do not agree that it should have been because I cannot see what difference it makes whether Fianna Fáil have one seat extra or fewer on the committee. The committee would operate better with a reasonable level of membership from the Opposition party.

Mr. Robb

I would like to raise the point that was made by Senator Willie Ryan in relation to the effectiveness of Joint Committees. In the short time I have been here it seems there is a great deal of difficulty in apportioning time and energy appropriately with regard to the work that must be done by Deputies and Senators.

I happen to be in a particularly privileged position, not representing anyone and therefore with no re-entry problems. For those who have re-entry problems one must be realistic and practical and understand the tremendous pressure. This needs to be emphasised. The public at large do not appreciate enough the tremendous pressures under which Deputies and Senators who have to seek re-election are under at constituency level. If one makes a contribution from the floor of the Seanad or the floor of the Dáil then there is some feed-back in relation to the political prospects in one's own constituency. The sort of work about which one is talking in relation to Joint Committees such as this involves a great deal of time-consuming effort and much hidden effort which does not result in a response at local level which is easily measured. Therefore, I would suggest that Senator Ryan may have been indirectly indicating once again the need to look at the whole Irish electoral system, the effect of clienteleism and even having a fresh look at proportional representation.

The work that is done in committees is vitally important and yet one must ask in relation to that work to make it effective whether our system at the moment militates in favour of or against its success in terms of constructive contribution. In that context I would be very concerned about what will happen to the Joint Committee on family law and marital breakdown. I take the reassurances we have received from the Leader of the House, but I am anxious that we do not put the setting up of that Joint Committee on the long finger.

Paragraph (4) bears out the appeal made by Senator Robinson last autumn about the need for this House to consider more imaginative use of its time. I think at that stage she alluded to the need for select committees and for them to be able to draw in evidence from people who are outside this House. In that respect I suggest that whenever this committee are set up very strong consideration should be given to the implications of the EEC legislation in as far as it affects Northern Ireland and in as far as this island is one island with at present one Legislature and one Assembly. I would like to see the committee addressing themselves to the need to engage the services of persons from the North of Ireland as well as from the Irish Republic in order to put the European dimension of our parliamentary and political thinking into its proper perspective.

I agree with Senator Eoin Ryan about the need for the accountability of this committee to the Seanad and the Dáil and also the need for the Seanad and the Dáil to ensure that the committee make their reports on a regular basis so that we will know what is going on and we will begin to understand better the European legislation as it affects us.

I summarise by saying that there is a need to ask ourselves why the Joint Committees have not been effective in the past. Is there something inherent in the political system which militates against their effectiveness? Secondly, there is the need to consider Northern Ireland as well as the Irish Republic in relation to the problems under discussion and, thirdly, we must emphasise the need for accountability and also the right of reporting.

Professor Dooge

I am very grateful to those Members who have contributed to the debate on this particular committee established by motion No. 1 on the Order Paper. There are a number of points on which I should comment in concluding. A number of Senators have raised the general question of the difficulties in regard to committees. Senator Willie Ryan and Senator Robb both raised the question of quorum difficulties, the diftee' ficulty of establishing a large number of committees and the difficulty of getting a quorum, and not just a quorum but getting sufficient Members to take an interest and put in the hard, slogging work required. This underlines the fact that when we in this House and those in the other House make these decisions and say, "Oh yes, we are going to have Dáil reform and we are going to have Seanad reform. We are going to set up a committee on this and a committee on that", we have to realise the implications of what we are taking on when we do this, because nothing could be more harmful to the working of the Houses of the Oireachtas than to change towards a system which is more committee-oriented and then not to operate the committees effectively.

There is a second difficulty we have had with regard to committees in the past which we will probably have in a more intensive fashion in regard to committees in the future. This is the question of the staffing of committees. A great deal of the problems of the operation of the committees which we have had in the past has arisen from the fact that these committees and their chairmen have been unable to obtain the staffing that was required. Senator Robinson in particular raised the question of staffing by experts as is allowed for under paragraph (4), of this motion and expressed the hope that perhaps arrangements could be made so that they would not have to get in each case the authority of the Minister for the Public Service. She was very anxious about the delay that was concerned here.

In regard to all matters like this, there are certain steps to be followed. There must be the authority for the hiring of these experts. We can ensure that that authority exists by passing this motion today. Secondly, the finance must be made available and finally there must be authority for the individual appointment. Under present circumstances, the delay is much more likely to occur with regard to getting a line in the budget rather than in the appointment of an individual. I suggest that this difficulty can best be avoided if the members of the committee as soon as they assemble consider not just the question of what expert they want for this, or what expert they want for that, but making an estimate of the amount of money that would be required for the hiring of experts in order to carry out their work efficiently, and they should despatch whatever is the result of that particular calculation to the Minister for the Public Service and to the Minister for Finance as quickly as possible. The time that it takes to get a reply will give them ample time for going into the question of what particular experts are required. That is the essential point rather than the point that is mentioned in the motion about the authority for individuals.

A general point that arose with regard to committees is the question of the debating of the reports of these committees. I join with Senator Robinson in deploring the fact that this has been inadequate in the past. Senator Eoin Ryan also adverted to this point. He joined with Senator Robinson in hoping that there would be an early debate when a recommendation for a debate was made. He indicated that we have to avoid the unreasonable position that debates are called for with such frequency that it interferes unduly with the other business of the House. There is a point that there has not been a report since 1981. Let us get a report from the committee and let us see how we will succeed in getting a debate on the floor of the House on that report, whether it has a specific recommendation or not, and see if we can get a modus vivendi. I do not think we should rush immediately to amend Standing Orders on this point. We might give our informal procedures a chance first.

In regard to the question of the numbers on this committee, the numbers are 18 members from the Dáil and seven members from the Seanad. I do not know on what basis that distribution was drawn up but it does, I think, allow the Seanad marginally more members relative to the size of the Seanad than it gives the Dáil relative to the size of the Dáil. I do not know how the fractions turn out. I have put forward the point repeatedly and I put it to the present Taoiseach since he took office that some of the difficulties that we have already been discussing in regard to the question of the difficulties of a quorum, difficulties in regard to the availability of people for committee work, might perhaps be mitigated if Senators were used more in regard to committee work. I have put that point forward and I will put that point forward again, but I hope my fellow Senators do not let me down in this campaign by not turning up when they are appointed to various Joint Committees. The best thing we can do is to prepare for the question of numbers when this question comes round next of trying to get an increased Seanad representation. I am talking about representation for the whole Seanad now. The Senators who are appointed to the large number of committees that are going to be set up should go in and do such a good job that the Ministers will say "Let us have more people like this and our committee system will work." I put the House on notice in regard to that.

Senator Willie Ryan has made the point that the choice of the number seven has created a particular difficulty in regard to the way in which we assign numbers among the groupings in this House. The way in which this has operated in the past is that it is normal for the Clerk Assistant of the House to take the number of the committee and work out what the appropriate numbers should be and discuss this with the leaders of the various groupings and with the Whips. It is customary that on any committee where there is an odd number the Government should have a majority. That has been the case down through the years. We have suffered from that in Opposition. In the last Seanad the numbers in this house were virtually equal as Senator Willie Ryan, as Whip, knows. Yet we assented to the fact that on a committee of seven the Government should have four and the Opposition had three on every committee — and not to just chair them. This was accepted. This leaves the position that the Opposition in the case of a Joint Committee of seven are entitled to three members. This is where the arithmetic is most unfortunate because if you work out how to divide three seats proportionately you find that the Fianna Fáil Party are entitled to 2.48 seats and the Independent grouping are entitled to 0.52 seats. These, I understand, are the figures. This is a real difficulty, and I agree with Senator Willie Ryan that it would be unfair under these circumstances if on every particular committee, that just because Fianna Fáil do not have that little .02 that brings them from 1.48 to 1.50 they cannot get three Senators on every single committee. In the discussions on this it will be necessary to take the committees as a whole. The difficulty here is that if we take each committee and make the decision on each committee it certainly would be unfair to the Fianna Fáil group. What should be done is that the committee should be taken as a whole and that we would see that justice is done overall.

Mr. B. Ryan

On a point of order, I get the impression that my future demise is being discussed by the two major parties here. We have a view on this.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not a point of order.

Professor Dooge

I mentioned that point because it was raised in the debate and we can attempt to satisfy justice without causing the complete demise of Senator Brendan Ryan.

A couple of other points were raised in the discussion. Senator Robb raised the point that there was the difficulty that it may be that people would respond to this call of mine to go into the committees and work very hard. What happens to them as politicians then? Does this mean that they will tend to work themselves out of their seats in the Seanad? This may be a very real difficulty. If we do what we should do in regard to the debating of reports of committees, in this House, then they will be the best informed and they should at least shine in these debates.

I would like to mention another point. We have already given permission in this House for the broadcasting of our proceedings. In any decisions we make in regard to the broadcasting we should not merely confine it to the floor of the House. In regard to major committees and particularly major debates in major committees the arrangements which are made with RTE in regard to broadcasting should extend to these also. This might help to mitigate this difficulty.

Senator Lanigan raised the question that this committee is an extremely important one and there are the difficulties of keeping the exchange of information between the Houses of the Oireachtas here, between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. This is an extremely important point and something we must keep in mind.

Senator Robb mentioned that in all our deliberations whether in this committee or the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament, we should not think too narrowly, that we should think also of Northern Ireland. I can assure him that that is being done. It was my own experience while taking part in the Council of Ministers in regard to certain discussions where in fact we were acting as the Legislature for the Community that I found myself on a number of points in sharp division with my British colleague but in complete unity with Mr. Ian Paisley's point of view as expressed at Strasbourg. For example, in regard to so many matters of agriculture, the Northern Ireland farmer makes his representations to Westminster where they are completely lost amongst the greater interest of British agriculture. In the European Parliament, and in the Council of Ministers, in regard to agriculture and many other points, it is the Irish representatives who are fighting the Ulster cause and that cause is not forgotten.

If there are any other points that I omitted in this reply I will be happy to be reminded of them but I hope I have dealt with the points raised.

Mr. W. Ryan

While I appreciate that the Government must have a majority on committees of the Seanad a Joint Committee is slightly different because I am sure the Government will make certain they have a majority of Deputies. If there is a majority of Deputies the Leader of the House might then consider giving us an extra seat. I do not know the number of Fianna Fáil TDs who will be on the committees but I am sure it will be fewer than the number from the Government side. There may be a big gap between both sides and I do not think that should happen. There should not be more than one of a majority for the Government on those committees in the interests of the committees. This is a different situation from a Bill going through the House and I do not see why any one party should be trying to score over the other party.

Professor Dooge

I agree completely with Senator Ryan and I certainly will discuss the matter with the Government Chief Whip. It may well be that a solution can be arrived at here. Instead of using the fraction that applies to each House we can add the membership of the different groupings in the two Houses and see if we can get a fairer distribution in that way.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am not sure what the definitions of fairness are around here because Senator Dooge used the word "unfortunate" when he was talking about the breakdown percentagewise between Fianna Fáil and the Independent Members of the House and I am not sure whether it was unfortunate for Fianna Fáil or unfortunate for the Independents or unfortunate that the Independents had unfortunately got above .5. If there are to be further discussions about the composition of committees it is because we had the wit to organise a group on this occasion that we actually have the entitlement, according to well established precedent, to one Member on these committees.

Professor Dooge

To 0.52 of a Member.

Mr. B. Ryan

Which I gather on past precedent has always been rounded to one. I do not know which half of me Senator Dooge would prefer.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Probably neither.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am disappointed in the Leas-Chathaoirleach. There has been a fairly well established precedent in this matter. I have some sympathies with a party as large as Fianna Fáil but I believe it is to those who have the capacity to give to be generous rather than those of us who have the option of having one or none. Those who have the major representation on these committees are the ones from whom one would expect the generosity. One cannot expect a small group like ourselves to concede what would be our single seat on an entire committee. I would not be entirely happy, therefore, with Senator Dooge's proposal to talk about joint proportions between both Houses because the proportion of Independent, or small party Members between the two Houses would obviously be even smaller. It would solve the problem between the two major parties but I can assure him it would create another problem.

Mrs. Robinson

Before the Leader of the House comes back on that point could I just come back to something I raised but did not fully question the Leader of the House on in my contribution, and that is how the new provision in paragraph (2) of the motion, a provision for alternate Members and also for access by any Member of this House to meetings of the committee will, work? First of all, I would like it clarified, as I would hope this would be the case, that this would include not just the full meetings of the Joint Committee which are relatively irregular to consider reports, but also meetings of the sub-committees where the real work gets done and where the quorum is very often more badly needed. I hope that this means that if a member of the Joint Committee is not able to attend a sub-committee meeting that that member can arrange for an alternate member and if it came to the rare occasion of a vote the alternate member could vote.

Secondly, if we are to make a real sense of the open invitation to other Members of this House to come to any meetings of the committee or sub-committee, how are they to know and how are they to be briefed as to what is coming up? Is it intended that they be circulated with the fairly substantial documentation of the Joint Committee and the sub-committees?

Professor Dooge

I am sorry I omitted to reply to that point. My understanding is that this is not a new provision. This provision was in the motion which established the last committee.

Mrs. Robinson

It had not come into effect.

Professor Dooge

The fact that Senator Robinson welcomes it now reflects the fact that it has not been used so what we are concerned with here is the question of making sure that this committee gets going properly, that this provision is actually used. Since it has not been used in the past, even though it was there, there probably is not an established procedure. I certainly do not think Members of the House would welcome the distribution of all the material that goes to the main members of the committee. Perhaps the distribution of the agenda which would indicate the points that are going to be raised would suffice. If a Member recognises something of particular interest he can attend that meeting and, if necessary, obtain by request the documentation in regard to that item on the agenda. That is how I imagine it would work.

Mr. E. Ryan

With regard to the recommendation that Senator Dooge made about giving notice in advance of what funds would be required to get specialists' advice and so on, that each committee give an estimate at the beginning of their work as to what would be required so as to obviate difficulties later on, it is not quite that easy because we had the experience on one committee where we did give an estimate each year of what was required and we did get what seemed to be approval of the global figure but, nevertheless, at a later stage when we requested permission to spend a certain number of pounds for having the service of a particular expert we sometimes found it was not forthcoming even though the amount required was well within the estimate we had put forward at the beginning of the year. We found ourselves on a number of occasions, although well within our estimate, still having long delays and sometimes failing to get the permission we required.

Professor Dooge

I do not think that is easy of solution.

Question put and agreed to.